Posted by
Andrews on Friday, April 25, 2008 4:00:08 PM
I have been
writing off and on about those who claim that science somehow "
proves" there is no G-d. In the past I have argued that it is an absurd argument, as religious questions are formulated in such a way that they are not subject to scientific proof or disproof, and thus are not the province of science.
So, why am I treading this familiar territory once again? Because I have come up with the perfect illustration.
In the late 11th and early 12th century, there arose in the Islamic world a philosopher named al-Ghazali. I will probably be accused of misrepresenting his philosophy, and to a degree I am emphasizing one later interpretation above the other possible readings, but here is a quick summary.
According to al-Ghazali, there was no creation except through G-d, created entities could not themselves create. In addition all causation was through the will of G-d. One of the many interpretations given to this was that there is no cause and effect, that fire only ignites paper as G-d wills it do so.
The interesting thing is that there is no scientific way to prove or disprove this. If G-d causes all things to happen, buy wills that such things happen in a way indistinguishable from cause and effect, there is no way we could tell the difference. The truth or falsehood of this theory is inherently a non-scientific question.
And the same is true of the existence of G-d. Barring personal experience of communion with G-d, no evidence exists of G-d's being*. It is simply not a question fit for science. Whether G-d exists or not is not a scientific question.
And the arguments raised by "scientific" opponents of G-d show this weakness. They do not prove G-d does not exist. Instead they mock organized religion, the tales in religious texts, or wax enthusiastic about how science explains all observable phenomena. Not one of those proves a single thing about the existence of G-d. Nor does the fact that a distinguished scientist is doing the criticizing give them added meaning. Whether it is a Dawkins, Hitchens, Mark Twain, or my six year old self** who doubts creation tales from the Bible, it proves just as little about G-d's existence. Scientific experience does not make irrelevant criticisms any more valid.
Then again, claims to have scientifically proved G-d does not exist do prove one thing, that the speaker does not understand what "scientific" means***.
------------------------------------------------
* Of course many would argue that personal experience is not proof as one could be insane or delusional. I would argue on the other hand that the same objection could be raised against all physical sciences, as the sensory data upon which we base them could also be delusional. That being the case, I will grant first hand experience of G-d the same credit I grant my other sensory inputs. As I have not had such an experience it is a bit of a moot point right now.
** My one and only brush with childhood religious training ended abruptly when my very youthful understanding of astrophysics came face to face with an overly enthusiastic literal reading of Genesis. It was quite some time before age and a more open mind allowed me to even admit there was a value to religion, and to understand that religion does not stand or fall on the validity of a literal reading of Genesis.
*** I would be equally critical of claims to have scientifically proved G-d's existence. Unless based on the aforementioned first hand experience, G-d's existence is as impossible to prove as to disprove.