The Chain of Evidence
I’ve been engaging recently in another of those regular though fairly pointless debates on the existence or otherwise of God. I say pointless because I’m almost certain that the protagonists on both sides of the argument will shift their positions not one inch towards the other. We have both heard all of the arguments laid out before and remain unconvinced of the others point of view.
One slight breath of fresh air was the comparatively infrequent introduction of the idea of evidence for the two positions. Certainly from my perspective this is a little difficult as my atheism is largely based on the ‘lack’ of evidence for God. It’s a bit like presenting an empty box and saying “See… there’s nothing there!”
One of the things that I attempt from time to time – when I find a Christian who will engage with me long enough to get this far – is to ask what they base their belief on, what evidence they have which underpins their belief in God. Of course this presents all kinds of problems in itself. Faith isn’t usually based on evidence, I mean if you have evidence for something why do you need faith as well? But I keep asking the question and find that too often the conversation ends there – sometimes amicably and sometimes not. On a few occasions though the particular Christian attempts to show what brought them to believe in a divine being who created the Universe and yet cares about each one of us personally.
To be honest at this point I begin to wonder if the conversation suddenly switches to an alternate language. One that is close enough to English that I can discern individual words but in which the meaning is lost – maybe in translation. I’ll try to explain further.
The ‘explanations’ of the grounding of Christians belief in God are as varied as the people themselves. Some simply point to the Bible as proof in itself. Others ask questions such as ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ or the classic ‘Where does Morality come from?’ as if these are unanswerable Zen koans that lead to instant understanding and theistic enlightenment. Some of the strangest answers have been things like trees, the Universe or my very own existence as proof of God. How they leap from the evident existence of one thing to the less than self evident existence of something else is beyond me. One of the guys at work tried very hard indeed to explain his faith to me and suggested several times that I should visit his church with him. One of the ‘selling points’ he made was that all of the Christians he knew were happy people. OK, I’m probably not the happiest person on the planet but I don’t think that my occasional periods of unhappiness warrant me abandoning my stance on God. When asked what prompted his belief in God he replied that it was the birth of his son. This was not really the kind of ‘evidence’ I was expecting.
It has dawned on me that theists and atheists often have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. As I said in a previous post on Kevin’s Blog: we must remember that both groups are operating within their own philosophical paradigms which means that one persons argument (or evidence) will be another persons belly laugh. I have, on more that one occasion been completely incredulous regarding the things theists produce as 'evidence'. I think that this factor is central to the problem we have in resolving this issue.
I honestly don’t know what kind of evidence it would take to convince me of the existence of God. I do know that nothing I have seen, heard about, read or been presented to me has even registered on the ‘belief meter’. That’s because what many theists regard as proof I, and many like me, do not. That, as I have said previously, is the nub of the problem in understanding each others case. What theists see as ‘obvious’ evidence atheists tend to see as meaningless. Where atheists see a lack of evidence (or sometimes evidence against the existence of God) theists see a proud and stubborn refusal to face facts.
That’s one of the reasons I see such debate as pretty much always pointless. We generally talk across each other and nothing is resolved – and yet there are those who lose their faith because of inconvenient evidence that undermines their belief in the divine. Likewise there are those who discover something that convinces them of Gods existence. The contradictions and problems inherent in Christianity I can see. To me they are obvious, but as to the ‘selling points’ I just have no idea what these people are talking about. Maybe I never will but I do love a good mystery……
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
6 comments:
many years ago i remember having a dicussion about ghosts with someone. i said i did not believe in them, they said thy did. Fair enough. I asked why, and they told me they had seen "loads" of ghosts. I only had to stay late one evening at work and I would be sure to meet the resident ghost there (everywhere I have ever worked has a resident ghost - amazing huh?)
So the next time we were together on a late sift, the coversation turned that way again. She told me how many time she had seen movement out of the corner of her eye, but when she looked there was nothing there. How she had often seen shadowy fgures standing by the side of the road on her way home, but when she pulled over there was nothing but trees. How many times she had thought of someone, just as the phone rang to tell her important news of that person. And as we sat there, we heard doors rattling, and kncking sounds from the floors upsatirs, even though we knew we were th only people there.
She said, all the above was cast iron proof of ghosts. I said that none of it was anything other than normal/natural phenomena.
Movement out of the corner of my eye is probably either a piece of fluff, a bird, or my mind playing "tricks" on me. Showdowy figures on a dark night are the shadows of trees. The reason you are thinking about someone os probably because you are expecting some kind of news! Doors rattle in the wind and old buildigs creak.
These things happen every day, but we gave them significance depending on our world view. the same is true when discussing evidenc efor God. Everything is eveidence to someone who believes that od made everything. Whereas everything is eveidence against God when you beleve he didn't do anything:-)
I agree, a pointles argument if the stakes are converting the other person. But not if the intent is just to undersatnd the other point of view - and that is a good start.
I disagree that "The Argument" is pointless. When you take The Argument de novo, you can take the Meta-Argument into hand and discuss the questions of "What is knowable?" and "When should a position on a set of facts be considered irrational?"
To me, the (non-)existence of gods is unknowable, especially what is sometimes called "the Personal God", the one that appears to you and helps you if you believe in it (most Christians believe in a Personal God).
I know that the God of the Bible does not exist. The Bible describes a God that is inconsistent in the extreme. Anyone who reads the Bible in an unforgiving mood--i.e., a mood which does not automatically reserve apparent contradictions to the realm of "the mysterious ways of God"--can tell you that, if the Bible is supposed to be the literal truth, then the literal truth varies from page to page and book to book.
If you can get someone who believes that the Christian God is the basis for the Personal God (i.e., that the Personal God is a manifestation of either God-including-Jesus or Jesus) to read the Bible with the promise not to permit obvious contradictions in the absolute truth of his/her basis for religious doctrine, then you create an unbeliever.
On the other hand, there are elements common to most atheists (and agnostics) which would not stand up to the same rigorous standard. The Big Bang Theory [BBT] is one of them. It has been altered repeatedly--something appropriate to a scientific theory and not necessarily an indication of falseness--and now depends on the existence of undetectable energy and matter that comprises in excess of 70% of everything. To quote Stevie Wonder, "When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer... Superstition ain't the way." Other versions of the BBT
have the Universal Constant being variant over time, having stages during which our universe did not have the same physical properties that ours does {including, according to some versions of the BBT, either a different or a variable speed of light). The BBT has become swiss cheese science which no longer fits the observable physical universe.
Evolution (and its variants such as intermittent evolution and co-evolution) (still) fits the observable physical universe and is a good example of a "real" scientific theory. If the Creationists (et alia) had any brains, they'd be attacking "so-called science" based on the Big Bang.
To me, the most interesting phrase in the Bible (at the start of John if I remember aright) is "In the beginning was the word, and the word was God". It neatly sums what, to me, is the most important question: how did "mind" come about and why does "religiosity" seem to be a genetic feature of the human race. Is religion more than a "sick meme"?
Knowledge and knowability both for the rationalist and the (irrational) theist is a topic that can be studied. Theists can be taught how to put together rigorous standards for evaluating "knowledge" and brought to understanding of why their current standards are not rigorous.
When someone starts out by saying that their beliefs go beyond mere knowledge, the cause is not lost. Even these beliefs are based on something. Once you get someone to question the basis of his/her belief, a seed has been planted that can and, in my personal experience, has borne fruit.
As an aside, a study of people facing death has shown that people who have strong beliefs about what happens when their bodies fail--atheists and devout theists alike--have been shown to have a higher degree of contentment than those who state that they do not know what happens to their minds when they die. So, if you're equating content with certainty where none can exist, there is evidence on your side.
Perhaps the reason I remain mainly agnostic is because I no longer have any evidence for the existence of God (looking back at my childhood, my belief was based on a combination of faith and trust in what my elders had to say on the matter - nothing concrete in terms of 'evidence'), and yet I can't say that this lack of personal evidence equals no God. I still have a strong belief in the spiritual nature of reality, but my beliefs don't necessarily require the existence of one supreme being in the universe. So, at this stage in my life, perhaps the question of the existence of God just isn't an important enough one for me to reach any absolute conclusions.
There are interpretations of 'god' (generally those supported by mainstream religion) that I can happily and strongly argue against, with sensible reasoning to back up my arguments, but when it comes down to the ultimate question of 'Is there a God or isn't there?', I simply can't argue either way. I don't have evidence for, and I don't necessarily accept a lack of evidence as an against. So... I'll just keep occupying my comfy spot here on the fence.
"are elements common to most atheists (and agnostics) which would not stand up to the same rigorous standard. The Big Bang Theory [BBT] is one of them."
As an confirmed atheist I can honestly say I do not believe in the big bang theory. I don't particularly disbelieve it either - I guess I'm n agnostic on BBT:-) But in reality I don't think there is enough evidence that I can understand to make it a sure thing - or even a pretty sure thing, and I'm just nit interested enough to study it in any great depth.
the fact that some scientific theories are not yet proven does not change the lack of evidence for god, and especially for any particular god.
juggling mother said:
the fact that some scientific theories are not yet proven does not change the lack of evidence for god, and especially for any particular god.
I agree wholeheartedly.
What I was trying to say, though, is that some of the attacks that creationists use on "evolution"--that it is unproven and does not explain "what happened" as well as does religion--might be true if they used them on the BBT part of the Standard Model.
The latest buzz word in the BBT's dark energy/matter's playground is "chameleon: a particle that changes properties depending on whether it is in very hard vacuum or in a place with a lot of mass. You can read about it in the New Scientist.
I'm not saying that such a thing could not exist--it would explain why it was so hard to find if it were to have such a property--but people have had to twist reality pretty hard to make it fit the BBT, and I think they'd have to twist it harder to accommodate the Chameleon. I wonder what form the Chameleon would take if it were present in a room full of Creationists: vacuum or mass?
Maybe I should create a "yes men" sort of site about how the BBT is full of holes and the Bible explains it better...Nah. Having written about it, that would make it too easy to vet me as a fraud. Someone else will have to do it.
General response...
After hearing so much from atheists about how firmly grounded the grand evolutionary theory is and how only those blinded to scientific truths by their irrational theological convictions would deny it's veracity, it's interesting to see how they react when science - namely General Relativity and Big Bang cosmology - contradicts their atheological convictions. Biology, it seems, is true science, while physics and astronomy are on par with phrenology and alchemy. Why? Is it some weakness in these other sciences? Let's see:
"As a confirmed atheist I can honestly say I do not believe in the big bang theory."
In other words, "My fundamental philosophical convictions preclude my acceptence of certain (i.e., contrary) scientific evidence." That is an understandable, perhaps even reasonable position to take. Einstein himself was repulsed the implication his theory, and in an attempt to avoid it he added the notorious "fudge factor" to his equations. He relented in short order and grudgingly accepted what the evidence said; that the universe - all time and matter - had a beginning, yet he never accepted the existence of a personal God, though he did adopt a deistic variation. Was it because he didn't have any evidence? No, in the end he could not accept the existence of evil in a world created by a personal God.
We all decide what to believe based on a priori convictions. None of us reason to every belief we hold. Most of our beliefs are basic, in that we reason from them and can not support them with arguments or classical proofs, nor are we required to do so.
All in all, I think Cyberkitten has hit the nail on the head. Proof is person-specific. For example, how much scorn has been heaped on Intelligent Design by those in our little circle recently? By my count the number of atheists impressed by ID or the Argument from Design is exactly zero. However, it was primarily these very propositions that finally forced Anthony Flew to reject atheism after so many decades as one of it's most notable proponents. Go figure.
Response to specific comments in original post...
Faith isn't usually based on evidence, I mean if you have evidence for something why do you need faith as well?
There's some truth there, but what if you used the word 'trust' instead of 'faith'; trust being a nearly identical concept. Is trust based on evidence? If you have evidence to you need trust at well? I may have seen a dozen other hikers traverse the rope bridge suspended over the crevasse, but do I trust that it will now support me? If I'm just planning on staying on this side I can say to the next hiker, "Sure, it'll hold you, get going!" But if I'm required to make a personal committment, that is cross it for myself, it's another matter entirely. Evidences are just entries in a database. They have no consequence unless I at some point act on them; then trust, or faith, enters the equation.
The contradictions and problems inherent in Christianity I can see.
Yes, Christianity, like every other belief system, has problems. But I'm not aware of any outright contradictions, and certainly none that would effect the core components. Remember, a contradiction is a statement along the lines of "'A' and 'not-A' are true at the same time and in the same relationship." Please share a couple of what you think are the most blatant examples of contradictions within Christianity. You can post them over at my blog or via e-mail if you'd prefer.
Post a Comment