In which I prove that God does not exist
I've mentioned before that you can get past the difficult problem of disproving a negative by rephrasing the problem as two opposing positives. You don't have to prove that an unfalsifiable theory is false, you just have to find a better explanation. Preferably an explanation that's "better" because it's parsimonious, testable, predictive, and falsifiable. Something simple, that explains more, with predictions pan out, that more reasonable people will accept as being true.
Many people say that science cannot address the existence of God. God is, by definition, an unfalsifiable concept immune to rational, empirical, and otherwise scientific inquiry. Religious people say, "You can't believe evidence indicating that God doesn't exist because God could have decided to make it look that way." while celebrating other evidence indicating that God does exist. God is the ultimate "heads I win, tails you lose", very convenient for the people who have defined Him to be that way.
Lately I've been having second thoughts. I think you can work past the problem of falsifying an unfalsifiable negative, as before, by rephrasing the question as opposing positive statements. Consider what I hope is a fair, broadly-worded religious statement and its nonreligious counterpart:
A. God is a powerful, intelligent force, entity, or entities which influenced the creation and operation of the universe, and possibly intercedes in past history or present-day events.
B. God is a purely fictional meme created and maintained, consciously or unconsciously, by ordinary humans to comfort, justify, influence, or explain otherwise difficult issues.
"A" explains some things fairly well. But "B" explains, predicts, and provides a path to more and better explanations for more things including where "A" comes from. Where religious texts come from. Where ideas like the soul, afterlife, heaven, hell, and reincarnation come from, and why they remain popular today. Why humans can draw clear moral lessons from morally ambiguous imperatives. Why believers proselytize so fervently and indoctrinate their children so enthusiastically. "B" also offers a simple explanation for the internal, external, and interfaith religious inconsistencies: people made it up as they went along. Most importantly "B" explains why something as powerful and omnipresent as God would be so difficult to find, and why "A"'s definition of God just happens to be so conveniently unfalsifiable. Because ordinary humans have constructed their concept of God to be unfalsifiable, not to be true.
Take any controversial subject that you're relatively certain is true. Global warming, the Holocaust, the connection between HIV and AIDS, whatever. Consider what people say who allege that these are simply made up. "It look like there was a Holocaust because the evidence is fabricated by scientists and historians with an axe to grind." "Remember global cooling? Scientists can't be trusted - they're always disagreeing with each other and changing their minds." "AIDS researchers are on Big Pharma payrolls and just want to keep making money."
Do people arguing in favor of the truth say that Global Warming, the Holocaust, or the HIV/AIDS connection just happen to look like they're not true, or do they go back to the field and bring back new evidence? Do the people denying the truth bring their own evidence to the table, or are they just trying to undermine confidence by poking holes in the other side?
Take anything that you're certain is fiction. "Star Wars", "King Kong", Santa Claus, Bigfoot, whatever. Imagine what someone would say if they tried to convince you that these things were actually true. "Luke Skywalker really did blow up the Death Star, and you can't disprove it because it happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away." "King Kong is a real story about a real giant ape that really came to New York City, which I know because of all the cracked concrete and dented dumpsters that you can see near the Empire State building." "I get a lot of satisfaction and happiness from knowing that Santa loves me and gives me presents every Christmas." "Bigfoot exists, but he's so good at hiding that nobody's been able to capture him."
Do these hand-waving excuses sound more like an atheist's reasons why God is fictional, or a religious person's excuses for why God really does exist despite appearances to the contrary? Is there anything that a religious person can say in support of God's existence that isn't the same kind of special pleading that we hear about Santa Claus or Bigfoot's existence?
What's a better explanation: that God made the earth 6000 years ago so that it would look 4.5 billion years old, or that someone made this excuse up to reconcile dogma and evidence? What's a better explanation - that a benevolent and infinitely wise God loves everyone, but lets bad things to happen to good people who don't appear to deserve it for His own ineffable reasons? Or that this is excuse that someone just made up to provide (marginal) comfort and deflect criticism? What's a better explanation: that the Pope, the President of the LDS Church, or the religious leader of your choice infallibly relays messages from God, or that they made this up to stop people from criticizing their ideas? What's a better explanation: that God just happens to be impossible to detect and impossible to disprove, or that someone decided to say this to stop people from trying to prove that he didn't? Is there anything that anyone can say about God or religion that isn't explained even better by "someone just made that up"?
We'll never be able to prove that a supernaturally undetectable God doesn't exist, or that Barack Obama isn't a Kenyan forgery expert, or that the earth isn't really at the center of a universe with particularly bizarre physics, or that the emperor isn't wearing undetectably fine clothing. Nor can we expect to change the minds of every last person committed to this nonsense. But we don't have to. The best that anyone can hope to do - in science, politics, or metaphysics - is to offer a better explanation that reasonable people with a reasonable standard of evidence will accept, and I hope that I've done that here.
Many people say that science cannot address the existence of God. God is, by definition, an unfalsifiable concept immune to rational, empirical, and otherwise scientific inquiry. Religious people say, "You can't believe evidence indicating that God doesn't exist because God could have decided to make it look that way." while celebrating other evidence indicating that God does exist. God is the ultimate "heads I win, tails you lose", very convenient for the people who have defined Him to be that way.
Lately I've been having second thoughts. I think you can work past the problem of falsifying an unfalsifiable negative, as before, by rephrasing the question as opposing positive statements. Consider what I hope is a fair, broadly-worded religious statement and its nonreligious counterpart:
A. God is a powerful, intelligent force, entity, or entities which influenced the creation and operation of the universe, and possibly intercedes in past history or present-day events.
B. God is a purely fictional meme created and maintained, consciously or unconsciously, by ordinary humans to comfort, justify, influence, or explain otherwise difficult issues.
"A" explains some things fairly well. But "B" explains, predicts, and provides a path to more and better explanations for more things including where "A" comes from. Where religious texts come from. Where ideas like the soul, afterlife, heaven, hell, and reincarnation come from, and why they remain popular today. Why humans can draw clear moral lessons from morally ambiguous imperatives. Why believers proselytize so fervently and indoctrinate their children so enthusiastically. "B" also offers a simple explanation for the internal, external, and interfaith religious inconsistencies: people made it up as they went along. Most importantly "B" explains why something as powerful and omnipresent as God would be so difficult to find, and why "A"'s definition of God just happens to be so conveniently unfalsifiable. Because ordinary humans have constructed their concept of God to be unfalsifiable, not to be true.
Take any controversial subject that you're relatively certain is true. Global warming, the Holocaust, the connection between HIV and AIDS, whatever. Consider what people say who allege that these are simply made up. "It look like there was a Holocaust because the evidence is fabricated by scientists and historians with an axe to grind." "Remember global cooling? Scientists can't be trusted - they're always disagreeing with each other and changing their minds." "AIDS researchers are on Big Pharma payrolls and just want to keep making money."
Do people arguing in favor of the truth say that Global Warming, the Holocaust, or the HIV/AIDS connection just happen to look like they're not true, or do they go back to the field and bring back new evidence? Do the people denying the truth bring their own evidence to the table, or are they just trying to undermine confidence by poking holes in the other side?
Take anything that you're certain is fiction. "Star Wars", "King Kong", Santa Claus, Bigfoot, whatever. Imagine what someone would say if they tried to convince you that these things were actually true. "Luke Skywalker really did blow up the Death Star, and you can't disprove it because it happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away." "King Kong is a real story about a real giant ape that really came to New York City, which I know because of all the cracked concrete and dented dumpsters that you can see near the Empire State building." "I get a lot of satisfaction and happiness from knowing that Santa loves me and gives me presents every Christmas." "Bigfoot exists, but he's so good at hiding that nobody's been able to capture him."
Do these hand-waving excuses sound more like an atheist's reasons why God is fictional, or a religious person's excuses for why God really does exist despite appearances to the contrary? Is there anything that a religious person can say in support of God's existence that isn't the same kind of special pleading that we hear about Santa Claus or Bigfoot's existence?
What's a better explanation: that God made the earth 6000 years ago so that it would look 4.5 billion years old, or that someone made this excuse up to reconcile dogma and evidence? What's a better explanation - that a benevolent and infinitely wise God loves everyone, but lets bad things to happen to good people who don't appear to deserve it for His own ineffable reasons? Or that this is excuse that someone just made up to provide (marginal) comfort and deflect criticism? What's a better explanation: that the Pope, the President of the LDS Church, or the religious leader of your choice infallibly relays messages from God, or that they made this up to stop people from criticizing their ideas? What's a better explanation: that God just happens to be impossible to detect and impossible to disprove, or that someone decided to say this to stop people from trying to prove that he didn't? Is there anything that anyone can say about God or religion that isn't explained even better by "someone just made that up"?
We'll never be able to prove that a supernaturally undetectable God doesn't exist, or that Barack Obama isn't a Kenyan forgery expert, or that the earth isn't really at the center of a universe with particularly bizarre physics, or that the emperor isn't wearing undetectably fine clothing. Nor can we expect to change the minds of every last person committed to this nonsense. But we don't have to. The best that anyone can hope to do - in science, politics, or metaphysics - is to offer a better explanation that reasonable people with a reasonable standard of evidence will accept, and I hope that I've done that here.