Much ink and blood has been spilled throughout history over the question of the existence and nature of God. Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard professor and evolutionary biologist coined the term “Non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA) to suggest that science and religion exist in distinct and separate spheres of inquiry without any overlap. Others reject NOMA and maintain that the question of the existence of a supernatural entity is a scientific question best addressed by using the same tools used to solve any other questions of interest. It is in that spirit that I state God’s existence as a hypothesis to be evaluated using the tools of science, reason and logic. Of course the existence of God is unknowable in a scientific sense and is best thought of in terms of probability.
Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist, created a useful a seven-step Spectrum of theistic probability ranging in scale from “1,” strong theist (100% certainty) to “7,” strong atheist (equally certain, “There is no God”). Please note that the strong theist and strong atheist are both irrational positions since they are assumed to be true without any evidence or argument. Both Carl Jung’s statement, “I do not believe, I know” and the atheist who declares, “There is no God” are both relying on something other than reason. The remaining points on the spectrum are: “2,” De facto theist (“Very high probability, but some uncertainty”), “3,” Leaning towards theism (“I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God”), “4,” Completely impartial (“God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”), “5,” Leaning towards atheism (“I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical”), and “6,” De facto atheist (“Very low probability, but short of zero”).
In this essay the God Hypothesis is defined as follows: God is both a supernatural deity and a personal God who created the universe and all its contents including man. He performs miracles, answers prayers, and provides for eternal life or damnation. He possess the following powers: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnibenevolence (all-virtuous). I will refer to God using the conventional masculine pronoun “he” in referring to “him.” Philosophers and theologians have devised two types of arguments in support of the God’s existence, formal (structured) and informal (anecdotal). Formal arguments in support include, the Cosmological argument, Anselm's Ontological argument, the Argument from Scripture, and the Argument from design. Informal arguments in favor include the Argument from morality, the Argument from justice, and the Argument from personal experience. Arguments against include the Epicurean Trilemma, and Hume’s test for miracles.
Cosmological argument
The major premise of the Cosmological argument is, everything must have a cause and if the chain of causes is traced backward, the first cause (God) will be reached. It is a very powerful, convincing, and easily understood argument. Even an acknowledged elite-thinker such as Bertram Russell admitted in his book, Why I am not a Christian that he was convinced by the Cosmological argument until he read John Stuart Mill's autobiography. According to Mills his father taught him that the question “Who made me?” cannot be answered “God,” since it immediately suggests the further question “Who made God?” The Cosmological argument contains the seeds of its own destruction and therefore must be rejected.
Anselm's Ontological argument
Anselm's Ontological argument defines God as a being for which nothing greater can be imagined. It further defines three categories of possible entities: “1,” things that exist in the understanding alone (such as the tooth fairy), “2,” things that exist in both the understanding and in reality (such as the sun), and “3,” things that exist in reality but not in the understanding (obviously there are not any examples ). If God is defined as the greatest conceivable being, than he cannot be in group “3,” since the concept of God is understood even by atheists. He also cannot be in category “1,” because a being in reality would have to be greater than a being only in the understanding and would contradict the major premise of the argument. Therefore by elimination, God must be part of the second category of things that exist in exist both in the understanding and in reality. Anselm's Ontological argument is rooted on the unproven premise that something that exists in reality must be greater than something that is only imagined. It can equally be argued that something can be imagined more perfect than anything known in reality.
Argument from Scripture
The Argument from Scripture is a classical example of a tautological argument or a self-reinforcing pretense of some significant truth. It normally takes the form of “The Bible is the inerrant truth because it was inspired by God” and “The Bible is God’s word because the Bible says so.” The Argument from Scripture is similar to Lewis Carroll’s Bellman's Theorem, “What I tell you three times is true” and is proof of nothing except for the lengths people will go in an attempt to defend the indefensible. There is an old sausage adage that says, “If you love sausage, you should never watch them being made.” After reading Bart Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, one could say the same thing about the Bible.
Argument from design
The Argument from design or teleological argument is based on the perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world. It was originated by William Paley, an English clergyman and Christian apologist in his 1802 book, Natural Theology. Paley argued that if a watch was found in the woods, it would be reasonable to assume that it had a human designer. Its intricate and complicated combination of parts precludes any possibility that its existence could occur by chance alone. Paley then extended his argument of complexity to living things and contended that they are also too complex to have arisen by chance and therefore had to be the work of a divine creator called God. Ergo God exists!
The Argument from design reigned supreme until 1859, when Charles Darwin published The Origin of the Species and introduced what has been called “The greatest idea that anyone ever had,” the Theory of Evolution through natural selection. Prior to Darwin, there was not any plausible alternative for explaining the immense diversity and complexity of life on earth. The Theory of Evolution through natural selection is a scientific theory and like all scientific theories must explain something (in this case the diversity and complexity of life), must make predictions (that turn out to be true), and must be falsifiable. The word “Theory” is being used in the scientific sense as opposed to the common definition that is similar to a “guess.” In science a theory is a proven hypothesis and is the highest standard of truth obtainable and can even be called a “Law.”
Anything beyond a brief introduction to evolution is better suited for a book rather than a short (hopefully) essay. For those interested in a more thorough treatment of this important and fascinating subject, a number of excellent books are recommended at the end. Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary geneticist provided the following definition in his 2009 book, Why Evolution is True: “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species–perhaps a self-replicated molecule–that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.”
In spite of the fact that virtually all the scientists in the world accept evolution as a scientific fact, millions of US citizens (mostly lay people) refuse to accept it for religious reasons. A recent Pew poll indicates that 40% of US citizens reject evolution in favor of the creation story told in Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament. These Creationists, mostly fundamentalist Christians read the Bible literally and argue that Creationism or Intelligent Design (ID) is an alternative scientific theory to evolution and should be taught in public schools along side of the theory of evolution. Note that this in direct opposition to Saint Jerome’s suggestion that a literal interpretation of the Bible is for the illiterate masses and an allegorical one for more advanced minds. Even Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church said that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.
The question of whether ID is a scientific theory or a religious belief was adjudicated in the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 2005. The case involved the Dover Area School District requiring the teaching of ID as an alternative to evolution theory. Eleven parents of students in Dover sued the school board in Tammy Kitzmiller v. the Dover Area School District maintaining that ID was a religious belief and violated the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III (a conservative Republican appointed in 2002 by George W. Bush) ruled that ID is not science and permanently barred the board from introducing into any school within the Dover Area School District. He also prohibited them from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution. Judge Jones’ 139-page findings of fact was a stunning endorsement of evolution and a major defeat for those promoting ID as a scientific theory.
Argument from morality
Many apologists have argued that God’s existence is proven by the fact that morality exists in the world. Their major premise is that without God, man could not be moral because without his presence man would resort to his inherent evil state that began when a talking snake convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. The Ten Commandments are often cited as an example of the proof of the argument. Interestingly, there are several sets of “ten commandments” in the Bible including Exodus 20 that lists twenty-six commandments of which only four would be considered today to involve a moral issue. They are, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, and Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (perjury). The prohibition of rape, incests, or slavery does not appear in any of list of commandments. The fact that 46% of world’s people are not followers of any theistic religion and still prohibit murder, stealing, and perjury by law demonstrates morality does not have to come from God. John Rawls (1921 – 2002), an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral philosophy has shown clearly that morality has developed in all societies by trial and error. Experience demonstrates that acts such as murder, rape, stealing, slavery and lying are detrimental to the happiness and contentment of all the people and were eventually outlawed by the state regardless and independent of their religious practices.
Argument from justice
The Argument from justice makes note of injustice in the world and then asserts that God must exist in order to eventually balance the scales of justice. Caste systems, such as the one in India have long used this argument to quell unrest among the lowest and most disadvantaged classes claiming that they will have it better in their next life. Saint Thomas Aquinas blurred the line between justice and revenge by suggesting the saints in heaven will be “permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell” in order to “enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly.” The Argument from justice in addition to its obvious violation of God’s omnibenevolence does damage to William Gladstone’s idea of “Justice delayed, is justice denied” and is one of the least convincing arguments in favor of God’s existence.
Argument from personal experience
This argument is best personified by the Bellman's Theorem, “What I tell you three times is true.” It was coined by the Christian apologist Lewis Carroll in his 1876 book, The Hunting of the Snark. It is a widespread device used by many people (explicitly and implicitly) in support of a host of beliefs ranging from alien abductions and Virgin Mary sightings, to the ability to communicate with the dead. A fundamentalist Christian once told me that he was “saved” when he woke up in the morning and found the hotel Bible in his room opened to John 3-16 (“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life”. He swears that it was closed before he went to bed. Another friend was obsessed with UFO sightings and swore that he had personally witnessed several events that could only be explained by the existence of extraterrestrials. Richard Dawkins cited a 1992 survey in his book The Magic of Reality indicating that four million Americans believed that they had been abducted by aliens. Whitley Striebers’s 1987 book, Communion is the story of his abduction and is billed as his “true story” and is classified “nonfiction.” José Luis de Jesús Miranda died of cirrhosis of the liver on August 8, 2013. While living in Miami, Florida he claimed to be the reincarnated Jesus and had over two million followers and believers. The Argument from personal experience can be used to prove anything and must be dismissed by rational people in the absence of evidence and independent verification.
Epicurean Trilemma
Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) was an ancient Greek philosopher and the author of the Epicurean Trilemma, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” The Epicurean Trilemma has been a thorn in the side of theologians and Christian apologists for over two thousand years and has even spawned the disciple of Theodicy in an attempt to explain away the contradiction between God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence. The question is, “How can evil exist in a world governed by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God?” Apologists introduced free will in an attempt to square the circle. According to this argument, God gave man free will to make choices and it’s man’s bad choices (Satan) that leads to evil and suffering. This solved one problem, but created two new ones.
First, natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes occur at God’s direction and cannot be attributed to man’s free will. And second, free will cannot be reconciled with omniscience. Keep in mind that “all knowing” requires perfect knowledge of everything that has happened in the past, perfect knowledge of everything happening in the present, and perfect knowledge of everything that will happen in the future. One example should make it clear why free will cannot exist in the same space with omniscience. Bill, an atheist lives and dies. An omniscient deity would have known that prior to Bill’s birth, life and death. If Bill had changed his mind and became a believer before he died, that would contradict God’s prior knowledge and thus invalidate his omniscience. Apologists must make a choice, allow for free will or omniscience, they cannot have both!
Hume’s test for miracles
David Hume (1711 – 1776), a Scottish philosopher suggested a way of evaluating claims of miracles. In his words, “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that the falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.” First, he defined a miracle as a ‘transgression” against one of the laws of nature such as gravity, and further noted that their occurrences would have to be very rare. For example, Bill claims that he saw Elvis Presley walking down the street. If true, that would be a miracle. There are at least three other explanations: he was mistaken, lying, or even delusional. According to Hume’s test for miracles, the falsehoods (Bill was mistaken, lying, or delusional) would have to be more miraculous than the fact (seeing Elvis). The possibility that Bill was mistaken, lying, or delusional does not come close to being more miraculous than the alleged fact of seeing Elvis alive and walking down the street, therefore the alleged miracle must be rejected.
The existence of God along with all the claims for his wondrous deeds is surely the mother of all miracles. According to Hume the alternatives provided by science, such as the “Big Bang,” and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution would have to be even more miraculous than the idea that man created God, therefore the concept of God must be considered the work of men and not a miracle. Formal arguments such as the Cosmological argument, Anselm's Ontological argument, and the Argument from Scripture are easily defeated and are seldom used anymore by apologists. The Argument from design has lost its appeal since Darwin’s Theory of Evolution provides an evidence-based explanation for the diversity of life. Informal arguments such the Argument from morality, the Argument from justice, and the Argument from personal experience are best described as “wishful” thinking and can be used to support virtually any fantasy imaginable. And the Argument from Scripture suffers both from circular reasoning and the Bellman's Theorem.
Although the Epicurean Trilemma and Hume’s test for miracles do not disprove the existence of God (after all it is impossible to prove a negative), they certainly make the God Hypothesis highly improbable. The conflict between omnipotence and omnibenevolence, and the tension between free will and omniscience cannot be reconciled without major modifications to the God Hypothesis. And since all the major religions conflict on major issues, it is a logical conclusion that at best only one can be true. It has been said that one gets their religion along with their mother’s milk in recognition of the fact that for the vast majority of people, their “chosen” religion is determined by their place of birth and the religion of their parents. If the God Hypothesis were true it would be reasonable to expect that the choice of one’s religion would be based on something more substantial than ones birth place and “choice” of their parents. After considering all the arguments I feel that a score of 6.9 (De facto atheist) on Dawkins’ Spectrum of theistic probability scale is the most rational position possible. For me the most compelling arguments against the existence of God are the Epicurean Trilemma and Hume’s test for miracles. In the words of Stephen Hawking, “One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary.” Even if untrue, what is the harm in religious belief? The answer lies in the words of Voltaire, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” The truth of this is well documented by countless atrocities committed in the name of God.
Sources
1. Why Evolution is True (2009) by Jerry Coyne.
2. The God Delusion (2006) by Richard Dawkins
3. Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (2005) by Bart Ehrman
4. Why I am not a Christian (1957) by Bertram Russell
5. The Magic of Reality (2011) by Richard Dawkins
5. Free Will (5/14/2013) Blog (The Needlefish Chronicles)
6. The Bible: God's Word or the work of Man? (5/6/2014) Blog (The Needlefish Chronicles)
No comments:
Post a Comment