Introduction
I am an ex-Catholic atheist who lost religion in his mid-teens and realised he was atheist in his mid thirties. I am a graduate in applied biology and currently work as a Senior Systems Engineer for an outsourcing company.
In this debate I hope to show that science is the only valid philosophy when explaining things in our universe, that any claim to the existence of deity is effectively a hypothesis, that all hypotheses can be considered by science, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and if they cannot provide it should be rationally dismissed.
"In face of the onslaught of the fundamentalists, some scientists are content to repeat over and over that they believe in evolution but that there is no conflict between science and religion. They only obscure the real issue. This statement may be true, but it depends entirely upon the definition of religion."
Clarence Darrow, 1927
Science
Science is a methodology and explanations based within the "scientific database" should be derived from scientifically acquired data ... from the US legal trial, McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education, 1996 it was agreed that:
• It is guided by natural law
• it has to be explanatory by reference to natural law
• it is testable against the empirical world
• its conclusions are tentative, that is to say they are not necessarily the final word
• it is falsifiable
Natural laws are broad generalisations that describe the way nature has been repeatedly seen to operate and if an observation depends on the supernatural it cannot be considered natural. Scientific theories must be falsifiable and most theories have some trouble with this (evolutionary and cosmological theories cannot turn the clock back) as no one can literally look into the past but it is not necessary to directly observe these events and explanations can be inferred from evidence that all past events (at least potentially) leave behind; they must be verifiable i.e. it must be possible, once a theory or hypothesis is advanced, for other experimenters to repeat those observations either by the same method or by others; and they must be tentative that is to say that no scientific explanation can be considered to be absolute. Scientific laws are not, as some would have us believe, the highest form of explanation in science but generalised descriptions of scientific phenomena in ideal or isolated systems.
Some believe that in science it is necessary to carry out experiments, this is a hugely oversimplified view ... science requires models, models that explain events, these models are based on observations and are used to predict further observations; experiments are simply one method of generating observations.
Science derives its confidence from accumulated observations and a rational (deductive) interpretation of the same. Evolution (to use the fundamentalist's most hated example) is now considered so safe that nothing could shake it as a theory but it remains true that it would only take (to use a theistic example) one piece of verified evidence that the hand of deity were involved in the process and evolution as a theory would die. The same is true of any scientific theory and demonstrates that science does not deal with truths or absolutes, it deals with facts, theories and hypotheses, is wholly open to challenge and can be considered an ongoing & self-correcting attempt to understand nature and the observable universe. Furthermore, given that the universe may be defined as "the sum of all that exists", we can say that science is an ongoing attempt to explain the universe and in this respect is attempting to explain all that is observable.
The Nature of Evidence
But what is evidence? Quite obviously not every piece of evidence is associable with a given claim for that would be to say that the life of a butterfly explains sunspot cycles and perhaps the big bang itself.
When a scientific hypothesis or theory is proposed a number of assertions will be made, an assertion is something that can be said about our universe and such assertions will be based upon evidence. Evidence (valid evidence) can be considered to be anything that can affect the likelihood of an assertion being correct, in essence a form of probability, and (as mentioned above) evidence must be verifiable. A relevant observation (to a given claim) is a piece of evidence that has been agreed to be correctly and accurately associated with a given assertion. Evidence can be directly observable or not ... for example if a country is claimed to have a population of 100 million it is quite clear that is not direct as no one can possibly see all 100 million citizens simultaneously, the evidence for this claim is therefore indirect (it is a generalisation).
When making a claim about our universe it is important to ensure that observations are true (verifiable) and that they are compatible with the claim and incompatible with competing assertions.
Today, the accepted method of investigation is scientific i.e. to propose a clearly stated hypothesis; to support that hypothesis with evidence; to propose an associated model; to gain from that model predictions; to confirm (hopefully) those predications and finally to elevate that hypothesis to the level of theory. That is how science works and it is the only effective method by which humans have discovered things about our surroundings since we were able to reason. It is also understood that if a hypothesis does not "fit" in any way with other knowledge already accepted about our universe, if it cannot be supported by evidence and it cannot provide information about our universe previously unknown then it is assumed to have no value and is dismissed.
In other words any claim that does not "fit" and is not supported by evidence is dismissed and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidential demands made of it.
Non-Overlapping Magisteria or NOMA
"Science and religion are each magisteria. Each holds away over its own domain, science over the empirical realm of fact and theory and religion over the domain of ultimate meaning and moral value. The two domains do not overlap, but their boundaries are not permanently fixed either."
Stephen J. Gould, 1999
In 1999, the late Stephen J. Gould, scientist, philosopher and historian offered us what he considered to be a simple and entirely conventional resolution to the perceived conflict between science and religion where he divided the authority over knowledge into two distinct realms or magisteria. The two realms (those of science and religion) did not, according to Gould, conflict and he called this idea non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).
"The net, or magisterium, of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made off (fact) and why does it work this way (theory)? The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite old clichés, science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven."
Stephen J. Gould, 1999
This view has several problems and with hindsight can be considered to be naïve as the central premise of NOMA is that science and religion do not conflict, in essence that science covers the empirical rail and religion are questions of ultimate meaning and moral value; if the two areas are so distinct why worry about the conflict? Unfortunately religion and science are not as distinct as some might claim:
- The persecution, including scores of burnings and debatably witch-hunt's, of heretics when science was seen to tread in areas dogmatically claimed by religions.
- That religious views have had to repeatedly (and reluctantly) change, retreat over time with the advent of new knowledge.
- If the domain of religion covers ultimate meaning and morality and religions cannot agree with each other which religion holds the key to ultimate meaning and which to morality?
- Religion cannot definitively lay claim ultimate meaning and morality in a world where a significant and increasing number of people do not believe in a God at all.
"Regardless of what the goal of the inquiry is, science fosters doubt and investigation based on empirical evidence; religion, on the other hand, is based on dogma and revelation. It is hard to see how those attitudes can logically coexist in the same brain."
Feynman 1998
In my own opinion NOMA can never work because:
- Science hasn't been demonstrated to have any specific limits except technological and claims to things that cannot be demonstrated.
- We are more technologically sophisticated than any of our known ancestors and continue to make ingress on areas previously considered to be the domain of religion.
- If the divide were as fixed as some like to claim it is, science would not continually advance on matters previously held to be the domain of religion and religion would stay utterly clear of any area claimed by science and neither of these things are true.
- Something that is claimed but reveals no validatable phenomenon beyond the claim is impossible to distinguish from a lie or delusion.
- Whenever science turns it's "eye" towards religious claims they are invariably found to be baseless or fraudulent.
Does God Exist?
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts
The claim is that there is a "God" and in this debate, as I am sure my opponent will agree, we are discussing the idea of the Judeo-Christian god, "Yahweh", "Allah" or just "God". This "God" is claimed to be an all powerful, divine entity, force or effect that created the cosmic all, watches over us and permeates every aspect of our lives ... I am sure my opponent will disabuse me of this idea and supply me with an accurate definition if I am incorrect?
There are today hundreds of claimed gods and in the past, rather amusingly dismissed as myth (with the implication that the specific claim under examination is not), thousands and it is curious that when a theist argues for the existence of "God" they almost always argue for one specific god (typically that of their birth) and don't seem to fully understand that for the very same reasons they reject claims to other claimed deities others can (with equal validity) reject theirs.
Despite the huge number of claims made for deity no one nowhere has ever, to my knowledge, been able to produce evidence that one actually exists:
- There are no reliable instances of "God" being seen, heard, touched or otherwise sensed.
- It is not possible to design an experiment to test for the existence or non-existence of "God".
- Available evidence at least implies that men wrote whatever religious scriptures currently exist.
- There is no evidence to indicate that "God" wrote or divinely inspired such writings.
Given that there is no truly justifiable reason to accept the idea of NOMA it has to be assumed that the claim, proposal or hypothesis of such a creator deity must exist within our physical universe and to act upon it must (at least potentially) leave some form of evidence of such acts. If that is so then there must be (at least potentially) hard scientific evidence to support the claimed existence of whatever god or gods are being claimed to exist and it must be possible to design an experiment to support or refute the existence of "God".
When we assume the idea of "God" it is clear it must be in one of three states:
- It exists
- It does not exist or
- It existed once but does not anymore.
Though [3] is of academic interest it is largely beyond the scope of this debate and typically theists do not claim this to be so we can limit the discussion to the first two possibilities.
If "God" exists then it either it must be (at least potentially) observable and die, at some juncture, to be explained. If all observable aspects of "God" exist outside of the universe then it can never be explained, is supernatural (by definition) and can have no impact on the universe or anything within it and, as such, science (and we) can safely discard it. The reverse also follows i.e. that if "God" is entirely or partially explainable then it is not, by definition, supernatural but natural i.e. a part of the universe but if it cannot be explained then it must be supernatural and entirely outside our universe.
In other words, if "God" exists wholly outside of the universe then there can be no observable evidence to support its existence and no one has any reason to believe in it let alone try to convince others that it exists. If, however, "God" exists within some gap in our scientific understanding of the universe then it is not only due to one day to be explained as such gaps will not remain open forever but is also shrinking in size as our knowledge increases.
Logically therefore God must be one of the following:
- Everywhere
- Part of the explained universe
- Part of the unexplained universe
- Non-existent
Given that no evidence for god has yet been uncovered "God" cannot exist within the parts of the universe we have explained and for the same reason cannot be everywhere (it would be possible to observe and test some parts of it). If it is a part of the universe but not yet explained then it must be a "God of the Gaps" and if so, as pointed out above, then every time we discover something new this "god of the gaps" gets a little smaller. The final option is that God does not exist ... this needs no justification, no proof & no evidence.
Conclusion
The universe is everything that is observable and can be considered a boundary across which information does not flow. Science is the recognised method of discovering things about the universe and it does it not by deductive reasoning but inductive. The inductive method, instead of building conclusions on a set of assumptions, builds on a set of observations and derives generalisations from them and the modern scientist looks on induction as the essential process of gaining knowledge, the only way of justifying a generalisation. Furthermore science is the only philosophy that has been shown to work and, although we can never have absolute confidence that scientific explanations are correct, we can claim quite easily that our current database and accepted explanations represents our best current understanding of the universe we observe around us. Then of coursed to the usual question ... how do we know that science works? As one engineer famously put it, "because the bridges stay up!"
If "God" exists and affects us it must exist within the confines of our universe and if does then it must (at least potentially) be observable. If "God" is not observable then it is impossible for anyone to have experienced its presence, so it cannot be demonstrated by any means to exist and anyone who ever claimed to have experienced god (personally or otherwise) has merely experienced a delusion. It's also interesting to note that if "God" is not observable then God cannot observe us.
Given that there is no validatable evidence (that cannot be more reasonably interpreted) to support the existence of God it is hard to see why any reasoning human being should consider that one should exist. If "God" is exists in some as yet unexplained niche and that our understanding of the universe grows daily then it follows that at one point "God" was potentially huge but nowadays is getting somewhat smaller indeed one imagines that care may be needed in case one treads on this "God of the Gaps" without realising it.
"It is often said that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
Richard Dawkins
References
Note: My references are a bit sketchier than I'd like but I will update them (and not the post main) over the next couple of days).
- Evaluation Of Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) Principle, April 30, 2009, David Mendez (http://www.thomisttacos.com/2009/04/30/e...principle/)
- "GOULD'S SEPARATE 'MAGISTERIA': TWO VIEWS, TWO BOOK REVIEWS" MARK W. DURM (http://www.godslasteraar.org/assets/eboo...ws_sec.pdf), MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI
- "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins
- "What Is Evidence", Yahouda Harpaz
- "Piece de Resistance" James Rocks
- "Does God Exist?" James Rocks
- "The Talk.Origins Archive Feedback: August 1999", Kenneth Fair
- "The Talk.Origins Archive Feedback: July 1997", John Wilkins
- "Information For All Biologists", Dr. Morden
- "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism", Kitcher (1982)
- National Center for Science Education 1999