God transcends, except when it doesn’t
Our friend Chris Hedges was on Point of Inquiry last week, and his performance is being discussed at the CFI forum. I couldn’t resist joining in a couple of times – the latest time because of one of those ‘science has nothing to say about god because god transcends nature’ arguments, or pseudo-arguments. Those always annoy me. I thought I would share.
I’m not seeing my error, I’m afraid. Christian dogma, at least, posits a god who exists outside of nature but who acts in time and space without inhabiting that time-space.
Yup uh huh sure. A god who exists outside of nature but can meddle with it any old which way but it still exists outside of nature because that way believers always get to say (and say and say and say) that science can’t inquire into this god because this god (so conveniently) exists outside of nature. That’s called having it both ways. Or in the vernacular, cheating. God is magic and special and Outside so science can’t investigate it, no no, go away; but on the other hand god answers prayers, sends hurricanes to punish the wicked, loves us all, hates the sin (but not the sinner), etc etc etc.
If (BIG if!) that’s true, then
a. how is this god at direct odds with science?…and
b. how would we ever use the tools for probing the physical world to investigate this mysterious god?
Big if indeed. Why should anyone think that is true? And notice how very convenient ‘b’ is. Doesn’t that convenience make you a little suspicious? If not it ought to.
Every time I hear one of the Big Atheists railing that God is antithetical to science, I scratch my head. I’m not arguing FOR a god—just that there can be no possibility of disproving something that exists outside of the only system we have. Not only can we neither prove nor disprove such a god’s existence, science itself has nothing to say on this subject.
Well there’s no possibility of disproving anything; disproof is much too high a standard – and the ‘Big Atheists’ of course know that perfectly well. ‘Antithetical to science’ doesn’t mean ‘capable of being disproven.’ Of course we can neither prove nor disprove such a god’s existence (and, again, the ‘Big Atheists’ know that). But as for science having nothing to say on the subject – well that depends on your acceptance of the bizarre and (as I said) suspiciously convenient idea that god is outside nature but active inside it. I would say that that’s just plain impossible, frankly. Either you are outside nature or you’re not; you can’t be both. If god is outside nature we know absolutely nothing about ‘it’ – whatever it is. We certainly don’t know that it’s called ‘god’ or whether or not it created the universe. We know nothing, so there’s little point in talking about it. There’s especially little point in talking about it in a dogmatic way. Christian ‘dogma’ about an inside-outside god that disappears when science is in the room and comes back when it’s time to frighten sinners – is a pathetic evasive joke.
“…there can be no possibility of disproving something that exists outside of the only system we have.”
“Having it both ways” … “cheating”…call it what you like. I call it a false choice.
I don’t know who said it, but I’ve called the concept of a higher power an ‘unnecessary hypothesis’ for many years now. ‘God’ has been asserted and never questioned. That’s all.
Sure, some people have an animal god, and others get a white man with a beard, but that’s about all the differentiation you get (unless you are a Unitarian, and you get to have all (and none) of the gods!!)
It seems that there are two annoying arguments here.
1) The assertion that God is “outside nature” and
2) The old “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist so I am not irrational for believing in him” argument.
How many times do we have to tell them about Russell’s Teapot before they get it?
JT-
#2 and its agnostic equivolent (“you cannot prove or disprove god, so let’s allow the theists to play with us”) remind me of one sibling harassing another on a trip, saying “I’m not touching you!” while waving his hands in your face.
It is an effective tease, but it accomplishes nothing.
@IanB
I am not really sure what you’re saying, but it seems to me that the agnostic position is the exact opposite – “you can’t prove either proposition so it’s irrational to believe either of them.”
@JT
In my experience, when agnostics stick their heads up, it is always to defend a theists right to have their ‘god’.
Either way it is maddening. I can understand someone being agnostic when asked which fast-food joint makes the best french fries, but on the hypothesis that there is a supernatural being living in and out of the natural world? Nonsense.
In the end, agnostics end up making philosophical room for individuals to assert what they please. That’s not an idea, that’s appeasement.
That’s certainly what Mark Vernon does with agnosticism. He’s a nice guy, but he has a thing about atheists. (Not as bad as Chris Hedges’s, but bad enough.)
Calvinball!
Is Vernon the guy who claimed that xmas carols prove the existence of god?
I think agnosticism is philosophically indefensible. Agnostics claim that if god exists then we can’t know that he exist, and if he doesn’t exist then we can’t know that either.
But if god doesn’t exist then there are plenty of people who know it: everyone who is an atheist due to the lack of evidence for god. If you wanted to deny that you would have to advocate an absurd epistemic theory.
So the proposition “god exists” is a logical consequence of agnosticism. Therefore any argument sufficient to justify agnosticism would also be sufficient to justify belief in god. But if such an argument exists then it is possible to know that god exists.
So agnostics who want to avoid absurd epistemic theories would have to claim that god exists, that it is not possible to know that god exists, and that it is not possible to provide a rational justification for this position.
Jakob Tomasovich said: Agnostics claim that if god exists then we can’t know that he exist, and if he doesn’t exist then we can’t know that either.
Well, yes and no. Some agnostics say that, and I think you’re right that it leads them to some wholly untenable epistemic positions. But other agnostics simply say that it’s impossible to prove the non-existence of God – to which every atheists says, “So what? I never claimed that it was!”
These agnostics – who contrast their agnosticism with a straw man version of atheism held by no actual atheist of my acquaintance – are the people I think IanB is perpetually annoyed with. Me too, come to think of it: I found the “I’m not touching you” analogy particularly apt and funny.
The signal is God sending His Only Son. ;-)
Given how powerful God is he can easily commute to the universe and cause events at a level of subtlety that is below science’s ability to detect.
Like, you know, turning people into pillars of salt.
Quite why a perfect being would need to intervene in their own creation in that way I don’t know. But then again we cannot know God’s plan. Unless we’re theologians, obviously.
“Now, believers, where is your detectable signal or effect?”
Abraham Joshua Heschel (one of my heroes due to his involvement with the civil rights movement) wrote extensively on the nature of prophecy and revelation. For a believer, it is fairly easy to argue that the detectable signal/effect is that transmission of a message. This signal, however, would be immune to scientific investigation primarily because it is neither predictable nor repeatable. As such the most likely scientific explanation would be one of experimental error (or mental illness, take your pick).
“But then again we cannot know God’s plan. Unless we’re theologians, obviously.”
It seems many (most?) theologians don’t claim to know God’s plan either. I’m reminded of the book of Job which effectively says that you can’t possibly know what God’s plan is. More importantly from a theological standpoint is that the book of Job provides a counter argument to Deuteronomy.
Well of course for a believer it is easy to claim (it’s not really an argument) that ‘prophecy and revelation’=detectable signal or effect. But I don’t quite see where that gets anyone. The fact that it’s neither predictable nor repeatable nor universal makes it not geniuinely detectable.
Good about not claiming to know god’s plan but then why not just go all the way and admit to knowing nothing at all and thus not talk about it any more?
“The fact that it’s neither predictable nor repeatable nor universal makes it not geniuinely detectable.”
I don’t quite follow this. Why are predictability, repeatability, or universality requirements for being detectable? It seems that when we consider radioactive decay you can have events that are not repeatable, not predictable, not universal, yet are still detectable. We have a good understanding of the process based upon the statistics from many random events, but no individual event meets your proposed requirements.
“why not just go all the way …”
Because then they would be out of a job?
My fault – by universal I meant universally available (given the right training, equipment etc).
IanB, the quotation is from Laplace who was asked by Napoleon, upon presenting the result of years of mathematical research to the Emperor, why he didn’t make any mention of god.
Sire, je n’ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse.
“Your Majesty, I had no need for this hypothesis”
As for prophecies and revelations, the problem lies not in their detectability but in the fact that they actually can be investigated and either disproved or explained by rational inquiry. It’s no accident that all the miracles happened so long ago.
Which takes us back to Laplace…
Well they can’t really be disproved. There’s no way to prove that a putative prophecy was not a prophecy. That’s not a reason to believe it was a prophecy of course, but proof is mathematical rather than empirical.
Detecting God:
Make one altar. Cut up lots of wood and one bull. Make it a perfect bull, please. Pile on altar. Add lots of water so as to make the bull and wood impossible to light.
Call on Richard Dawkins to set fire to it.
When his lighter blows out, call on God.
<... >
God? …
God? …
God? …
.
THe Old Testament plainly does not apply its perfect law to the new dispensation, and instead I must renew my faith in all patience. Clearly it is God’s plan that the combustion of our offering (in a time of carbon footprint awareness), be replaced by its decomposition over a time, two times and a time.
I have been SO tempted to do that test at my own church.
A goat would be more convenient though… perhaps I could donate the cost difference to World Vision.
Arnaud,
Thanks. That is wonderful.
Indeed, it is wonderful. ‘I had no need of the hypothesis’ is something of a catchphrase among atheists (although I at least never remember who said it).