For today's blog I'm responding to a letter my friend Dr Billy sent to Metro, 29/8. Billy, you say the burden of proof lies with religious people to prove God exists, not with scientists to prove the reverse. You're setting up a strange debate here, which I know you lack no energy in thrashing out - in itself interesting, considering so many people don't give much thought about God one way or the other. Probably to most people of faith, the whole idea of this kind of proving match is, to put it in an abstract way, total category confusion. I'm not a scientist, but I know the scientific method commonly involves controlled tests/experiments to learn something new about physical reality - perhaps the existence of a new substance, or an effect. There is hypothesis, test, and theory - which is subject to being altered should new evidence come to light.
From our discussions, it is clear you want to frame the topic of God in physical scientific terms. You don't seem willing to acknowlege there may be other frameworks for thinking about God. As there are other frameworks for thinking about other dimensions of human experience and reality - a beautiful piece of music, for instance. Can I prove Mozart's a great composer? Probably not - but most folk wd acknowledge he was. Before you react that the analogy's inadequate, I'm not claiming it's exhaustive; music for starters impinges plainly on the senses, which I know God does not - not in the same direct way at least. The image does though contain other parallels which I reckon make it worth considering, eg music springs from experience and impacts the emotions in a mysterious way not able to be reduced to scientific data. And, like God I'd say, when you experience it you don't feel a need to 'prove' it to others, though you may well want to try and help them appreciate it's beauty if they don't already.
If you read this I'm sure you'll get back to me. I try to blog something daily, and want to discuss this a bit, so am combining the two. Sure you won't mind. One benefit of your questions and criticisms about faith is it can spur some of us to think more about why we believe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
2 comments:
Hi Bruce, glad I have got you thinking. Here are some comments:
”you say the burden of proof lies with religious people to prove God exists, not with scientists to prove the reverse. You're setting up a strange debate here,”
I don’t see how. Rationally, you don’t feel the need to disprove the existence of yetis, Loch ness monsters, harpies, cyclopses or mokele mbembe. You would require reasonable evidence to believe that these exist. Do you agree that if I told you we should believe in any of the above, would you require evidence? Why then do you change your standards about your particular version of the God hypothesis?
” From our discussions, it is clear you want to frame the topic of God in physical scientific terms.
And why not? Is whether prayer gets answered not testable? What about prophecy or interpreting tongues (you should have seen today’s letter in the metro). Evangelists like talking about personal experience as if it is some sort of verifiable evidence. Are you then claiming that there is no evidence at all?
” You don't seem willing to acknowlege there may be other frameworks for thinking about God
This is a logical fallacy. It argues presuming an accepted assumption that God actually exists. It does not provide a reason to believe in the first place. Are you then saying you believe because you just do? You would then have to show that your way of thinking is right and that the Muslim’s or the Hindu’s etc way is wrong. Since you can’t even demonstrate the existence of the supernatural in the first place, you are on to a loser here. You have a non evidence based belief system that you then judge to be superior to other non evidence based belief systems – without any evidence.
” Can I prove Mozart's a great composer?”
No, he sucks! Good old Ludwig van could take him in a square go – and he was deaf! This does bring up a more serious issue. You are talking about highly subjective feelings. This is not a way to tackle a question. Try this, get three glasses of water; one at room temperature, one that is much warmer and one that is much colder. Put one finger in the hot one and one finger in the cold one and leave them in for a minute or two. Now, put them both in the room temperature glass. What do your fingers tell you? If you are normal (big assumption I know ) the finger that was in the cold glass will tell you the water is warm, the other one will tell you it is gold, but they are both at the same temperature – subjectivity is no evidence at all.
” music for starters impinges plainly on the senses, which I know God does not - not in the same direct way at least.”
See above
The image does though contain other parallels which I reckon make it worth considering, eg music springs from experience and impacts the emotions in a mysterious way not able to be reduced to scientific data.”
As does tooth ache, but there is no invisible being behind that. Why do you claim it can not be reduced to physical means? This sounds like the double logical flaws of personal incredulity and the god of the gaps argument. By the way, Neandethals (which were a different (sub?)species made flutes. How does that make humans special. Do Neanderthals get in heaven?
” And, like God I'd say, when you experience it you don't feel a need to 'prove' it to others, though you may well want to try and help them appreciate it's beauty if they don't already.
If only everyone had that attitude from the JW who bug you at home to the popes who threatened nonbelievers with death. It is a problem particularly in thr US, where a mixture of politics and lies fuels the creationist movement who amongst other things claim Darwinism is the work of Satan and as a result, evolutionists are evil. You may not act this way, but there is a war there where freedon and truth is a stake. I’ve said it before, but those who run the creationist propaganda machine are liars.
Then we get the religious acting like moral police. Particularly bizarre when we look at the character of the OT god or the track record of organized religion.
(I’ll gladly provide examples to anyone who asks).
I also see faith as something that brings misery to many, so the issue is important. Some will of course provide claims of positive experience, but there will be a more rational explanation, like a placebo or cognitive behavioral therapy. I’m still waiting to meet a healed amputee.
On a different note, here is a puzzler for you, it got me thinking - Do you believe God can do anything? If so, can he make 2+2 +71? Or square circles? (remember, 2 must be 2 ans circles must be round etc)
It made me realize the idea of a god who can do anything is a contradiction
Yours in reason
Billy
EDIT:
That should of course read 2+2=71, not +71
Billy
Post a Comment