The God of Convenience

[Jenny A]

But if you have an experience, and can't substantiate it scientifically, then you'll believe that you really didn't have that experience or you just imagined it. Of course, saying you just imagined it is a scientific conclusion. You believe that there is no way to substantiate an experience but by natural scientific means. So if it can't be proven by natural science, then it doesn't exist.

To prove something scientifically, is to prove it using a particular formal set of methods. Everyday methods and proof work just fine for proving that things around us exist.

I tell the real from the imaginary by a number of very simple methods. Generally speaking if an object is of a kind I ordinarily perceive with my senses and one which other people ordinarily perceive, I can be quite confident that the thing exists. When it comes to the existence of things in my presence this is really all that's necessary and I don't even have to really think about it. Then there are things I've only seen in pictures, read about, or been told about. I don't apply the scientific method to those either. Unless the thing is unlikely, or the person presenting has reason to lie, I just assume those things too.

But in either case I would accept scientific evidence showing either the thing is an illusion or that it is not what it appears to be.

What is different about things which require proof is that they violate the ordinary rules of how the world works. If a ball falls up rather than down, some further investigation is in order. Maybe the ball was thrown rather than dropped. Maybe it's filled with helium or hot air. Maybe there's a vacuum in the ceiling drawing it in. But I won't just believe in it without looking further.

A friend of mine's father tells of a UFO frequently seen on his air force base. It was a bright light seen by pilots passing rapidly over the horizon during takeoff. He saw it himself. Like my upward falling ball, it was not ordinary even though it was experienced by many pilots. So he investigated a little and discovered that that it was a reflection of some local buildings following the curve of his windshield on some runways in bright light.

Things I suspect of being imaginary or hallucinated go a step further even than the UFO and the upward falling ball. They are things that can't be accounted for my any ordinary explanation. That in itself is not proof that a thing is imaginary, but it is suggestive. Add that the experience is neither easily repeated nor easily verified, and we're stepping further towards hallucination. If you add that you have to really want to see it, or that it won't appear if others who don't want to see it are there, I'll tilt further in the direction of believing it's imaginary. Add that those who do see it, all see very different things, and I'll be approaching 100% sure it's imaginary.

God is like this. According to most believers you have to ask to see him and really want to see him to see him. The sighting can't be verified by others. The sightings are ephemeral, sometimes they happen sometimes they don't even though the thing is supposed always be there. And finally, those doing the seeing disagree about what they've seen.

The disagreements are large: Is there one god, or many? Is the god visible or unseeable? Knowable or unknowable? The disagreements are small: Does the god want us to eat pork? Pray on Sunday, or Saturday? The disagreements are personal: I prayed and god told me to take a new job on the opposite side of the country, but my wife prayed and god said to stay here.

God has all the hallmarks of a hallucination. Therefore, like ghosts, ESP, extra-terrestrial abductions, and unicorns, I will not accept god without scientific proof.