The Rintrarian Archive

Those of you who know me or have read my previous posts will know that I have been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Until the other day I could not put my finger on what concerned me most about the book. His conclusion (and his assumption at the begining) is that God does not exist. I would not care if his conclusion was that God existed and I do not care that it is that God does not. I would have the same concern either way.

The premise of Dawkins book is that God does not exist and that he can prove this because the existance of God is question that is scientific in nature.

From this, as we shall see, [the agnostics] often make the illogical deduction that thte hypothesis of God’s existence, and the hypothesis of his non-existence, have exactly equal probability of being right. The view that I shall defend is very different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP [Temporary Agnosticism in Practise] category. Either he exists or he doesn’t. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability. [p.48]

Those of you who have had a chance to argue with me will know that I do not have much faith or trust in the scientific method. I have problems with this for a number of reasons. One of which is epistomological. Where does knowledge come from? How does knowledge of truth substantiate itself? Why is the “rational” scientific method deemed as the end-all be-all method in the quest for knowledge and truth?

This is where I turn to Sir Karl Popper (you can also check out wikipedia or the Karl Popper Web. or anything else that suits your fancy).

Karl Popper’s contribution to philosophy and science is an important one. The principle is simple (especially in hindsight and especially when dumbed down like I have done). Nothing is true unless it is, at least theoretically, falsifiable. This principle is how Einstein could learn more about the universe with a piece of chalk. A theory is scientific even if it is false. The ability to be wrong is crucial to science or else it has no merit.

For example, Einstein’s theory that light bends as it passes by large objects was imagined in Einstein’s head. This theory would be proven false if light were seen passing by a large object and not bending and, therefore, falsifyable. The sun was thought to be large enough and the light from stars passes by the sun. During a full eclipse the stars can be seen during the day (and are, therefore, passing past the sun). If the stars were in the same position when the sun was in between the viewer and the source then the Einstein was wrong. Otherwise, he is right. The ability to prove something false is imperative for its truth-worthiness. However, Einstein was right and his idea is deemed as truth (but is still falsifyable).

Another important thing to note is how Einstein came up with such a theory. He did not first observe it. He could not have observed it first. This is a case of real science. Other “science” (like Dawkins’ book) rely entirely on pre-observation and even prejudice. Dawkins claims that the question is scientific but that his theory is not falsifiable (at least he does not provide any opportunity). Dawkins looks at many elements of the “proof” of God but denies them all for reasons which do not qualify as scientific and excludes other reasons which are, generally speaking, scientific. (Consider some archeological evidence which may prove some accuracy in the Bible, for example.)

Dawkins and his missionaries will, likely, state that there is more than enough proof falsifying the God Hypothesis that there could not possibly be a God. If Dawkins has done what he set out to do then the “scientific” proposition that “there is a God” has been proven false. However, the removal of one theory does not instantly institute another in its place. “A provable God” (or “A personal God”) is not replaced with “No God whatsoever.” If this were the case then Dawkins has provided a scientific claim which he does not believe is falsifiable and, in which case, is useless and not truth-worthy. Just as stating “Some people are idiots” has not merit. I can prove that some are idiots but this statement cannot be falsified and, therefore, is not scientific.

If Dawkins has provided a scientific claim that “Nothing supernatural exists” then this must be falsifyable, at least in theory. This can be only proved false using philosophy and not using science. The “supernatural” is not a thing (the supernatural is, therefore nothing as in no-thing). In being not a thing the supernatural cannot exist as a physical entity. With this as the case there is no scientific method by which it can be falsified. Because it cannot be falsified, it is not scientific. Because it cannot be falsified it is not worthy of being called a “statement of truth.” Because the “supernatural” is not a thing then it is not a being and it does not exist as a physical entity.

Dawkins does not disprove the existence of God but what he does is discredit the “proofs” which he had pre-chosen to discredit. This discreditation is not necessarily complete or accurate or warranted but, at least to those who have been bullied into agreement, it is enough to attribute it as truth-worthy. However, whether God exists or does not is not a question which can be scientifically calculated and probability does not complete the equation. Probability does not answer any questions, it just gives a best guess. And guesses are not truth-statements. They are beliefs.

(Oh, and being agnostic is not necessarily believing that it is a 50-50 chance. Being agnostic is stating that there is not enough evidence either which way.)