Taking a second look at untestable gods.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no disagreement science cannot look for gods that exist outside of the Universe so we can dismiss that issue up front. I propose looking at the problem of testing for gods in a different way.

I'm having a unsatisfying discussion with one person on the SWIFT blog so I thought I'd open it up to a wider group. The discussion was originally about a website Phil recommended called, Understanding Science. I am going to stick to the Deist definition of a god here since it simplifies the 'gods exist' question and because that is the direction the blog discussion took anyway.

There are 2 issues in the blog discussion. Do Deists make claims and are those claims testable?

One disagreement in the blog is whether saying, "a god exists", is a claim. It obviously is. Yet many skeptics are willing to overlook this and give Deists a pass on this claim by saying it is not testable. Being a claim and being testable are 2 separate issues. However, I understand the issue of not making testable claims.

The second disagreement then, is on testing the claim, "a god exists".

Deist claim #1: Because I make no claims my god does anything, you cannot directly test for the presence of said god.

This is correct. I cannot test for things which existed before the Big Bang and outside the Universe either. But you have to look more deeply at the issue, "can one test for the existence of gods", than just dismissing it on these grounds.

Before the BB and outside the Universe are untestable things which can be pondered, but nothing can be known about them. These two untestable conditions are reasonable to ponder. While we have no evidence anything existed before the Big Bang and/or outside the Universe, the rest of our knowledge, (things within the Universe generally do have conditions outside them and before them.), makes these two untestable conditions reasonable to ponder.

It is less reasonable to ponder untestable things outside the Universe or before the BB for which there is no evidence and no current knowledge suggesting potential existence. This category includes invisible pink unicorns, invisible garage dragons, and gods.

Belief such things exist is not evidence they exist. Widespread belief could be argued as a reason to ponder these things might exist outside the Universe, but I am arguing that is not the case because once we examine the nature of that widespread belief, nothing is left supporting a reason to ponder the actual existence of gods.

Which brings me to Deist claim #2: A god exists.

This is the claim most Deists avoid acknowledging is a claim. Some skeptics' view as legit, ignoring the claim a Deist god exists and only recognizing the Deist position, it is not a claim if it is not a testable claim.

The Deist claim, "a god exists" can be addressed with equal validity stated as, "the Deist believes a god exists". Now I can test the claim by asking, is that belief based on an interaction with a real god or is that belief the result of other factors? And asked in that format, it is a testable claim.

The test may not be able to reach absolute certainty, and the test addresses the claim of gods existing indirectly. But indirect, short of proof investigations compose a large body of our scientific works.

Once the claim of belief is tested, you are left with a non-evidence based claim that a god exists. It can be shown the evidence we do have, (and there is a lot of it), overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, all god beliefs, (which would include the Deist god belief), do not result from an interaction with a real god. The evidence supports the conclusion, god beliefs are imaginary beliefs.

The fact that we can't test the above condition for every god belief is no reason we cannot draw a scientific conclusion about all god beliefs. We haven't mapped every single genome either but that hasn't stopped science from drawing a conclusion about how all organisms evolved. Science does not require certainty to draw conclusions, and in fact, certainty is almost never known in scientific conclusions.

Whatever exists outside the Universe or existed before the Big Bang CANNOT BE KNOWN. That includes a Deist's claim that a god exists. The Deist cannot know there is a god outside the Universe anymore than I can know there isn't one. The argument, a god does exist outside the Universe because one could exist, gives weight to one of two answers of something that cannot be known either way.

On the other hand, the evidence actually does support the conclusion god beliefs originated as myths, not from interaction with real gods. The evidence does provide weight that god beliefs are myths. I don't care if gods exist outside the Universe anymore than I care if invisible pink unicorns exist outside the Universe. There is not simply a lack of evidence, but rather, because I can explain the origin of god beliefs, there is nothing left as a reason to bother pondering the existence of gods.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't understand this bit:

The Deist claim, "a god exists" can be addressed with equal validity stated as, "the Deist believes a god exists".

Seems to be these are two completely different propositions.

Just as "Bigfoot exists" is very different from "Some people believe Bigfoot exists".

Can you 'splain this better for me?

 

[hgc]

The Deist claim, "a god exists" can be addressed with equal validity stated as, "the Deist believes a god exists".

What in the hell does that mean? What is meant by can be addressed with equal validity in regards to two very different statements a god exists and so-and-so believes a god exists?

 

[hgc]

Yeah! What Joe said!

 

[geni]

Whatever exists outside the Universe or existed before the Big Bang CANNOT BE KNOWN.

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

On the other hand, the evidence actually does support the conclusion god beliefs originated as myths, not from interaction with real gods. The evidence does provide weight that god beliefs are myths. I don't care if gods exist outside the Universe anymore than I care if invisible pink unicorns exist outside the Universe. There is not simply a lack of evidence, but rather, because I can explain the origin of god beliefs, there is nothing left as a reason to bother pondering the existence of gods.

That you can provide one possible explanition doesn't mean that that explanation is correct. Plently of theories that work fine until you start looking for ways to break them.

So lets consider the beliefs originated as myths theory. The most ovious problem is that there is no real reason to think that beliefs originated in the form of stories. In fact the availible archaeological evidence points to burial practices as the origens of belief. It is also slightly questionable if belief actualy postdates language.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Overall, I agree with the way you think, but you still haven't made these claims more testable (that is falsifiable).

You've made a wonderful case why it's not reasonable to believe them. That they're not necessary (since we can explain the real-world phenomena they purport to explain without them, and we can even explain the origin of the god-myths themselves) and extremely unparsimonious. But that's still not the same as falsifying the claims.

On the "can theists be rational" thread, we've kicked around some of these same issues. Some theists were arguing that "rational" only means something like "not logically impossible".

I forget what flavor of dualism it's called, but there's one that puts all the God/soul claims completely outside the universe. There's no causal connection. My "soul" and the real me just happen to coincide all the time. An absurd notion, but I don't see how it could be considered "testable" in any way.

In fact, the fact that such things are untestable is what makes me think they're completely useless.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Didn't know you guys would be so fast. I had just added this to the OP:


Why not test the "belief in god" instead of "the existence of god"? Testing the existence assumes a conclusion, "gods exist", and tries to fit the evidence to it. Deists in this case have come up with the ultimate 'fitting' exercise, they've simply defined god as not testable as if that supported the existence of a god.

But following the evidence supports the conclusion, god beliefs are imaginary beliefs. That conclusion includes Deist gods. I don't need to test for the existence of something the evidence supports is imagined to conclude it doesn't exist. And I don't have to test every single god belief to draw that conclusion. I can support the conclusion that all god beliefs are imaginary with overwhelming evidence by looking at a sufficient number of god beliefs and finding no variation from the conclusion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Personally I don't rule out ever knowing these things in the future but it is generally accepted in science that one cannot know anything about conditions before the Big Bang or outside the Universe. I did not make this concept up on my own.

....So lets consider the beliefs originated as myths theory. The most ovious problem is that there is no real reason to think that beliefs originated in the form of stories. In fact the availible archaeological evidence points to burial practices as the origens of belief. It is also slightly questionable if belief actualy postdates language.

Are you saying all the god beliefs we know are myths is not overwhelming evidence god beliefs are myths?

A few examples: Ra, Pele, Zeus, Thor, ... I'm sure the list of mythical god beliefs is enormous.

 

[hgc]

So lets consider the beliefs originated as myths theory. The most ovious problem is that there is no real reason to think that beliefs originated in the form of stories. In fact the availible archaeological evidence points to burial practices as the origens of belief. It is also slightly questionable if belief actualy postdates language.

Um, how about stories of what happens after you die? That's a pretty big part of almost any religious belief system, and it's pretty well wrapped up in burial rituals. I don't see any contradiction, nor any distinction even, between mythic stories forming into anthropomorphised agents of creation/destruction and burial rituals. Why do so many pray to the deseased directly and to their memory, after having buried them with food and hunting implements for the afterlife?

Not only is it knowable by empirical inquiry, it's pretty much been found out all ready.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What in the hell does that mean? What is meant by can be addressed with equal validity in regards to two very different statements a god exists and so-and-so believes a god exists?

Besides beliefs in gods, do you have any evidence gods exist? Belief is all we have evidence for. We have no evidence of existence of gods.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why not test the "belief in god" instead of "the existence of god"?

Oh I've done that myself in argumentation. (For example, I don't think anyone actually believes "abortion is murder" or that they'll actually truly see their deceased loved ones again in any meaningful way. I usually point to their behaviors that are completely inconsistent with holding those beliefs.)

However, it's not arguing the same proposition. Testing "belief in god" but it's not the same as testing "the existence of god".

Or at least I don't see how it is.

Testing the existence assumes a conclusion, "gods exist", and tries to fit the evidence to it. Deists in this case have come up with the ultimate 'fitting' exercise, they've simply defined god as not testable as if that supported the existence of a god.

I agree. I think the sole reason for the development of the Deist non-definition of god is a retreat from beliefs in more "fleshed-out" or hands-on ideas of god. And I think it's just more socially acceptable--or was more socially acceptable-- to go to that position than to call oneself an atheist.

But following the evidence supports the conclusion, god beliefs are imaginary beliefs. That conclusion includes Deist gods.

I agree. I take the skeptical model--follow the evidence and tentatively adopt that conclusion as the truth.

But this isn't what is meant by a testable proposition, is it? I thought that meant a falsifiable hypothesis. Since we don't have that, it's most reasonable to follow the skeptical model.

I don't need to test for the existence of something the evidence supports is imagined to conclude it doesn't exist. And I don't have to test every single god belief to draw that conclusion. I can support the conclusion that all god beliefs are imaginary with overwhelming evidence by looking at a sufficient number of god beliefs and finding no variation from the conclusion.

I agree, and that's a very good description of what it means for me to be an atheist. (Although I do enjoy showing how well-defined God concepts are impossible by being internally inconsistent.)

But I thought you were saying you'd found a way to test the proposition "a god exists". Maybe I misread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Overall, I agree with the way you think, but you still haven't made these claims more testable (that is falsifiable).

You've made a wonderful case why it's not reasonable to believe them. That they're not necessary (since we can explain the real-world phenomena they purport to explain without them, and we can even explain the origin of the god-myths themselves) and extremely unparsimonious. But that's still not the same as falsifying the claims.

On the "can theists be rational" thread, we've kicked around some of these same issues. Some theists were arguing that "rational" only means something like "not logically impossible".

I forget what flavor of dualism it's called, but there's one that puts all the God/soul claims completely outside the universe. There's no causal connection. My "soul" and the real me just happen to coincide all the time. An absurd notion, but I don't see how it could be considered "testable" in any way.

In fact, the fact that such things are untestable is what makes me think they're completely useless.

My point is to get past this co-mingling of evidence for beliefs and evidence of existence.

It is clear to me you can draw conclusions about god beliefs. Why is it skeptics and scientists have little problem saying, there is no evidence for fairies ergo fairies are imagined creatures, but they have a hard time making a leap from, there is no evidence for gods ergo gods are imagined beings?

I am once again addressing the double standard some scientists give some god beliefs. And this particular approach to the double standard made sense and seemed worth sharing.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why not test the "belief in god" instead of "the existence of god"?

OK--I follow now.

Still, when you say "test the belief in god" you're not really doubting that there are believers. You're just asking what the evidence believers have for their belief.

In other words, rather than coming up with a way to test an untestable claim, you're just using the skeptical model. If they make a claim, you evaluate the evidence. If there's not compelling evidence, you reject the claim (tentatively--because you'd be willing to change your conclusion if compelling evidence should ever come to light).

I would agree that that's the right approach.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
But this isn't what is meant by a testable proposition, is it? I thought that meant a falsifiable hypothesis. Since we don't have that, it's most reasonable to follow the skeptical model.

The falsifiable hypothesis is, a god belief is a belief in an imaginary being. Or there are other ways to word the hypothesis: God beliefs developed without interaction with actual gods.

The non-falsifiable hypothesis is, gods exist that are outside the Universe.

...I agree, and that's a very good description of what it means for me to be an atheist. (Although I do enjoy showing how well-defined God concepts are impossible by being internally inconsistent.)

But I thought you were saying you'd found a way to test the proposition "a god exists". Maybe I misread.

I am saying that. But I am taking the question on in a different way. I am saying that claiming a god exists outside the Universe ignores the evidence gods are imaginary creatures.

I am saying one need not have absolute proof to determine if gods are imaginary creatures.

I am saying one need not test every god belief to determine gods are imaginary creatures.

I am saying if the evidence shows gods are imaginary creatures then why are we concerned about the ability or inability of science to test for the existence of gods before we can say that science supports the conclusion gods are imaginary?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Still, when you say "test the belief in god" you're not really doubting that there are believers. You're just asking what the evidence believers have for their belief. ....

Not exactly. I am looking at the evidence of all god believers throughout history as a whole rather than an individual's single god belief. I think it is a double standard to leave certain current god beliefs out of the picture as if there really was a reason to.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The falsifiable hypothesis is, a god belief is a belief in an imaginary being. Or there are other ways to word the hypothesis: God beliefs developed without interaction with actual gods.

The non-falsifiable hypothesis is, gods exist that are outside the Universe.

But what makes it non-falsifiable is saying that the gods exists outside the universe. Adding the layer of beliefs in (itself) doesn't change it. It's the requirement for interaction with gods (that is, backing off of the Deist's undefined god and talking about some form of a hands-on god that does stuff in this universe).

I am saying that. But I am taking the question on in a different way. I am saying that claiming a god exists outside the Universe ignores the evidence gods are imaginary creatures.

As a bit of an aside: I don't think it ignores it. I think historically, it's a reaction to the fact that science started making the old version of god an untenable belief. Rather than jump all the way to calling themselves atheists, Deists just shrunk their god to the gaps in our knowledge (or, if you prefer, put it outside the universe and out of the reach of science).

I think it was an intentional move!

At any rate, I agree with the direction you're saying to go. To me, that's simply the skeptical model. It's not up to me to prove that a god-claim is false. It's up to the god-claimant to provide evidence for that claim. Failing that, I reject the claim.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But what makes it non-falsifiable is saying that the gods exists outside the universe. Adding the layer of beliefs in (itself) doesn't change it. It's the requirement for interaction with gods (that is, backing off of the Deist's undefined god and talking about some form of a hands-on god that does stuff in this universe).

Can science not then address the fact fairies are imaginary creatures? Leprechauns? Where's the distinction?

Does science have nothing to say about human imagination and the development of god beliefs and does what science has to say about those things not apply to the question, do gods exist?

The evidence supports the conclusion gods are imaginary beings. End of evidence.

As a bit of an aside: I don't think it ignores it. I think historically, it's a reaction to the fact that science started making the old version of god an untenable belief. Rather than jump all the way to calling themselves atheists, Deists just shrunk their god to the gaps in our knowledge (or, if you prefer, put it outside the universe and out of the reach of science).

@the choir

 

[Zelenius]

Can science not then address the fact fairies are imaginary creatures? Leprechauns? Where's the distinction?

Does science have nothing to say about human imagination and the development of god beliefs and does what science has to say about those things not apply to the question, do gods exist?

The evidence supports the conclusion gods are imaginary beings. End of evidence.

@the choir

I agree wholeheartedly. I think in large part, many scientists and skeptics don't make the case that gods are simply products of the human imagination due to the privileged position of religion in society. Arguments in favor of atheism often become unnecessarily complicated and lost in the wilderness of philosophy as if there is any merit to god-belief, compared to say elf or fairy-belief. It sounds so "crude" and "disrespectful" to compare God or gods to creatures that even most God-believers don't believe exist. In many societies around the globe, God-belief is very nearly universal and plays a very important role in people's lives. Belief in God is therefore considered important, whereas belief in elves is generally not.

Another reason may be due to the flexible, nebulous nature of the "God" concept. In this respect, it can't be compared to elves or pink flying unicorns, which are much easier to define than "God". As far as supernatural ideas go, "God" is in a class by itself; it is an extremely powerful idea, it is often identified with the universe, and/or as the all-powerful creator of the universe. This is why it is often so tempting for many scientists to use "God" metaphorically when describing the nature of reality, even by scientists who are non-believers.

Einstein for all his unparalleled genius and brilliance may have confused matters by his frequent use of "God". By the standard definition of atheism, I believe Einstein was an atheist. Yet to my knowledge, he didn't consider himself to be one, and didn't want "professional atheists" using him in support of their non-belief, even though he stressed he did not believe in a personal God or a God who listens to prayers. I don't think he believed in supernatural anything. Maybe he could best be described as agnostic, which is what he called himself after repeatedly getting asked about his beliefs.

Many historians and biographers of Einstein don't help matters much since they often group him more with traditional religious believers than with atheists and skeptics, since "Einstein believed in God". Even atheist authors, like Richard Dawkins for example may inadvertently make God belief seem more respectable due addressing so many utterly ridiculous "arguments" in favor of God's existence and demolishing them - belief in fairies is seldom if ever treated like this. Of course they'd have less to write about if they said it is as simple as seeing theism as fairy-belief, end of story, no need to dignify any God arguments with a refutation. Certainly, I may be a hypocrite for even participating in this discussion.

Now we have Stuart Kauffman, another brilliant scientist who sees "God" and the universe as synonymous in his book, "Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion." There is nothing new about this, it just seems like the "new pantheism", in reaction to both the "new atheism" and the "new religious fundamentalism". It is an illusory "Third way", yet at its core it is atheism bending over backwards pretending to be something else.

I wish skeptics and scientists did compare God or gods to elves or fairies more often, and would love it if they stopped using "God" even in a metaphorical sense. Too many people refuse to let God die, even those who do not believe in it.

 

[Zelenius]

Double post.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I wish skeptics and scientists did compare God or gods to elves or fairies more often, and would love it if they stopped using "God" even in a metaphorical sense. Too many people refuse to let God die, even those who do not believe in it.

Lovely post, Zel. Join me in battle, the theist skeptics have not yet discovered the thread.