bitbutter www

I won’t talk specifically about existence claims, but about propositions in general and how we deal with them in everyday life. So I’ll re-frame the question:

Do we have to categorically establish that a claim is true before we can legitimately assume its truthfulness?

A couple of things need to be clarified. We can never be totally certain that a claim is true, no matter how good the evidence is. When we talk about 'categorically establishing’ the truth of a claim we really mean having an overwhelming amount of strong evidence to support it.

Similarly, even if we 'assume the truthfulness’ of a claim we are also reserving a small space of doubt about it. We assume the sun will rise tomorrow but we acknowledge that we can’t be totally certain of it.

In a nutshell my answer to the question is yes.

Our judgment about the likelihood of a claim being true should be continuously variable in response the the quality of evidence supporting the claim.

In order to legitimately 'assume the truthfulness’ of a claim (ie. reserve only a vanishingly small amount of doubt about it) we need to categorically establish that the claim is true (ie. be satisfied that the evidence for the claim is overwhelming).

Inconclusive evidence

Often the evidence in support of a claim is poor or inconclusive. In these situations we can’t legitimately assume the truth of the proposition.

Even without conclusive evidence, it may sometimes be wise to act as though a proposition is true if we take into account the cost of a false negative error; Pascal’s wager is a famous flawed attempt to apply this tactic to the question of the biblical god’s existence. In this situation we are not assuming the truth of the claim—merely taking precautions.

Evidence for gods: a few scenarios

If there was an overwhelming amount of reliable evidence for the existence of a god then the position of theist would be the only legitimate one. In this kind of world a god might live on earth with us like a kind of superman; performing miracles, demonstrating omniscience, and humoring scientists by agreeing to take part in their tests to rule-out foul play.

If, instead, there was just some reliable evidence that pointed to the existence of a god then weak agnosticism would be a reasonable response. If repeatable, methodologically sound, intercessional prayer studies were showing a strong positive correlation between prayer and rates of healing I would call myself an agnostic.

As things stand in the world that we live in though, there is no reliable evidence to support the existence of any god.

If you believe a god has personally revealed himself to you, please don’t expect anyone else to take your word for it unless you can also relay the details of an effective cure for cancer, the precise date of a future geological catastrophe or any of a number of other nuggets of divine wisdom that only a god could be privy to.

If, like most of us, you haven’t had such a revelation the only intellectually honest position is to add (weak) atheism to your lack-of-belief list that already includes afairyism, awerewolfism and adragonism.

Posted: June 20th 2007

See all questions answered by bitbutter

Akusai www

Strictly speaking, we can never categorically establish the existence of anything. The underlying assumptions of science are that reality is more or less how we perceive it and that its functions are intelligible and at least somewhat regular. We establish theories and laws thanks to repeated controlled observations of our surroundings, but never can any of those theories and laws be absolute and unquestionable. Many, many scientific theories have been demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt, but all of them are always open to questioning; the evidence of the questioners had better be pretty impressive, though.

Of course, it bears getting semantic again and pointing out that, when it comes to science, “belief” is a poor word to use. I prefer to call it “accepting the evidence.” We don’t believe what science shows us, as that would imply some level of faith. We simply accept the evidence it provides. This question perhaps unwittingly equivocates the two ideas, implying that religious belief is the same as scientific “belief.”

So while we don’t need to categorically establish the existence of an entity to legitimately believe in said entity, some evidence is needed to ground your belief in rationality and reality. It is utterly irrational to believe in the truth of a proposition lacking any evidence for that proposition, and especially so if there is evidence to the contrary. This is what we find when we examine religious belief. There is absolutely no evidence that a god or gods exist. Science shows us that the universe behaves pretty much exactly as we would expect if there were not a deity around. It is thus the utmost of silliness to accept the proposition “a god or gods exist” as true.

It is technically impossible to categorically establish most anything, and some things in science are fuzzier than others, but all of it is based on observation and evidence. God-belief has absolutely no evidence to back it up, and so the major implication of the question, that its okay to believe if a proposition isn’t categorically established, is somewhat misleading. God’s existence isn’t only not categorically established, it is pretty well categorically unestablished.

Posted: June 18th 2007

See all questions answered by Akusai

 

Is your atheism a problem in your religious family or school?
Talk about it at the atheist nexus forum