Bashing atheists isn’t really my thing, and it’s not what this post will be about.
The thing is, I write a blog for young Catholics (and then I guess for anyone else who wants to read it), and I talk a lot about how much I love the Catholic faith and how great Jesus is and all that…and all along this “God” character is sort of just accepted as a given in my world. Yes, I was raised by parents that believe in God, and no, I’ve never seriously doubted His existence.
See, to me, Romans 1:20 has always summed up all the proof I’ve ever needed for God’s existence:
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
Translation: Look around! This place is stunning! Human beings are amazing! Look at all the tiny intricacies of even the smallest organism on the planet! Believing that this all happened by mere coincidence is a heck of a lot harder to swallow than believing in God. At least that’s the way I look at things.
Big shock: the author of the Catholic blog believes in God.
But that doesn’t mean that I’ve never had questions; nor does it mean that I can’t recognize faulty logic when I see it, which brings me to this:
By now you have hopefully realized that I did not create the above meme. Truth be told, I actually find the list of reasons given at the beginning of the picture for why this person is NOT an atheist to be far better reasons to say there’s no god than the one they seem to think packs the most punch (but those can be the topic of another day’s post). Today we discuss “the burden of proof” and the “scientific method” (which, FYI, was developed by people in the Catholic Church).
Let’s start by acknowledging where the meme is right. It’s impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Science will never be able to prove that anything, let alone God, does not exist.
Now, I’m not a scientist and I won’t pretend to be. But I’m 100% certain that science has no business outside of the natural realm. If a god exists, then by definition, it’s not a natural being; it’s supernatural. Since science can only tell us about the natural realm, it’s entirely possible for a supernatural being to exist without natural, empirical evidence (sight, sound, taste, touch, smell) for it. Science cannot disprove god; but asking science to prove the existence of god misunderstands both science and the question of a god.
I know what you’re thinking. Why not only believe in things that science can prove, then? Things that we can see with our own eyes, things that we can hear or taste or smell or touch. These are the only real and verifiable things, according to the logic of the above meme.
Sounds simple enough… but nobody actually lives in that world. There are tons of things we believe in but cannot prove with the scientific method. The most striking of these is love. Love isn’t something we can smell or touch, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t believe in it simply because we can’t examine it under a microscope. We experience love. We know the pain of when love is lacking. Try as we might, we can’t deny the existence of, or the need for, love. Yet science will never be able to prove that love exists, and it would be silly to ask that of science.
If your only reason for not believing in God is because you can’t prove His existence with the scientific method, not only are you missing the point of science, you’re [presumably] missing out on some of the most beautiful aspects of this life. Come into the real world, where “real” isn’t limited to only those things which we can smell, taste, see, hear, or touch.
Nice.
It’s also good to point out that faith in the scientific method is indeed a certain kind of faith. That is, can you use to the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the best method to determine what is true? No, because that a philosophical question which ultimately demands a pinch of faith.
Plato had a good story about this in The Republic. He asks the reader to imagine a group of men standing around a fire in a cave. The opening of the cave is blocked off from the outside world. The cave is all that these men have ever known. They have never seen the light of day, just the flickering light of the fire on inside walls. Should they assume that their cave and the orange glow of the fire are all that exist? Just as there is an entire world outside their cave that they don’t know about, so the same might be for us.
This video by Fr. Pontifex reminded me of your post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBCvF5cQ8HQ&feature=youtu.be&hd=1
Love exists therefore God? Just because we can’t measure, for example, jealousy, doesn’t mean it isn’t natural. All love requires is a functioning brain. Human brains to be sure, but perhaps even dogs, whales, and dolphins can love too, all thanks to their brains, which can be tested and measured.
“Love exists therefore God?”
Not quite the claim of the post. Just that limiting what you believe in to only those things verifiable by the scientific method puts you into perhaps a smaller box than you realize.
Anything that has a measurable impact on the world can be verified by the scientific method. You appear to be arguing that not only is God something that we cannot smell, see, hear or touch, but that God has absolutely zero impact in or on the real world. If that were the case he would be no different from Odin or Set or Ah Muzencab. If you believe that your particular god is different, can you explain what difference he makes to the real world?
Science and Religion go hand in hand. God created both, therefore they shouldnt contradict each other. True Science and True Docrtrine match. Despite what many think.
God is love.
What does “God is love” even mean?
http://monicks.net/2012/01/14/jesus-loves-you-what-does-that-even-mean/
I means that God (the person we worship. The person who sent His son do die for us. The one who saves the world) Is (Verb. Insinuates being) Love (Not that warm fuzzy feeling, but that relationship. That understanding between two people that when you are with the other everything in the world is perfect even when you know it isn’t. Not the ‘love’ that is just lust. A wolf in sheeps clothing. This love is pure, it doesn’t hate, there aren’t any strings attached. The perfect insurance plan. The love that eveyone strives for. The love that can’t compare to anything on this earth, even greater than mother-child.)
God is love.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never failsDid you hear that?Love Never Fails.God Never Fails.
“ there aren’t any strings attached” But there are – if Catholic doctrine is correct, my atheism is sending me to Hell. Rationally there is no reason for me to believe any religion. God, if he has set it up, makes it impossible for me to believe in him, and, if Jesus is the truth, the way and the light and that no man getsto heaven but through him, then I am screwed. God’s love is conditional – it’s conditional upon belief in him.
If Catholic Doctrine is correct (which it is). God created you. Even though you dont believe in Him, He believes in you. He loves all of His creation even if the creation rejects Him.
“Creation can’t exist without the Creator” So if we exist. So does God.
Firstly, on what basis can you assert that Catholic Doctrine is true. Obviously you believe it to be so, but myself, as an unbeliever need a little more than that, as there are lots of other believers of other religious doctrines who insist that their doctrine is true.
Secondly, if he loves me, even though I reject him (for a complete lack of evidence), why will he then send me to Hell for all eternity to suffer. It’s a rather disproportionate penalty, and makes him seem like a bully at the very least.
God is merciful, but He isnt a pushover. Think about it: Your parents love you but will still ground you! If you reject Him, then you go to Hell, not because He puts you there, but because you choose to go there. Just like stealing a cookie, you make the choice between good and bad, between God and Hell. If you reject Him then you don’t want to be with Him so heaven isnt for you.
Although, dont ge me wrong. I’m not here to condemn non-believers. Theres only one judge and He isnt me. This is, though, the reason people go to Hell. On their own accord.
I don’t believe in your god. On what grounds should I accept your god, and not some other god(s)? There’s more than one that threatens me with punishment for not believing in them. Also, does it not seem that an eternity of torment is a bit of a disproportionate punishment?
A number of things come to mind.
Firstly, does God act on the world? If so, then those are things that can be tested scientifically.
Aristotle and Francis Bacon may take issue with your statement about the scientific method being developed by people within the Catholic Church. Yes, Catholics played their part, but let’s not forget the foundations that were built long before the Catholic Church existed.
You already give evidence for the existence of love. What more do you need? This is where the burden of proof comes in. Love is mentione,d evidence is given, it’s compelling and people agree. We all appraise evidence to some extent – those that don’t so much fall prey to Nigerian email scams.
For those not raised in a religion, think how “See, to me, Romans 1:20 has always summed up all the proof I’ve ever needed for God’s existence:” sounds. It’s no different to a taoist saying to you “See, to me, the Tao Te Ching summed up all the proof I’ve ever needed for the Tao”.
When you say “If your only reason for not believing in God is because you can’t prove His existence with the scientific method…” why does this logic not extend to other things? Why not Allah, astrology, homeopathy, the Tao or Thor the Norse God of Thunder. Science can’t prove that three of those things don’t exist.
The burden of proof rests on the religious believer.
And science has much to say on love:
http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.com/2012/07/atheism-and-love-and-science.html
Actually, religious persons existed before aithiests (I mean, obviously otherwise there wouldnt be anything to not believe in) So religious people were worshipping and an aithiest proclaimed “There is no God”. That is an accusation
In a court case the burden of proof lies on the prosecution or the accuser
Atheism is an accusatory belief (Philosophy)
To quote How I Met Your Mother:….LAWYERED!!!
Objection! Logically fallacious!
This argument doesn’t work on a number of levels.
Firstly the burden of proof, by this reasoning, must apply to all but the oldest religion. As a Catholic the burden of proof must sit with you, because Judaism, for example is older and came before. But Hinduism has a strong case as being the world’s oldest religious tradition – so it came first, therefore, the burden of proof is on to prove that Vishnu doesn’t exist (and I’m afraid, you can’t prove that kind of negative).
Secondly, it’s fair to say there are things that neither of us have conceived of or know exist, but we don’t believe in them. If someone came up to you and told you something that didn’t make sense at all and flew against all your reason, would you then have to accept this new crazy idea because you couldn’t prove it was false?
Life isn’t a court case. If someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is with them.
All I’m asking for is evidence of why your religion is true over all the others, because it seems to make more sense to me that none of them are true, given the available evidence.
(Your comment also inspired a blog post (http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.com/2012/08/proof-of-god-argument-from-antiquity.html Not fair to deny you the right to reply to it there)
I am flattered that I inspred such a lovely blog post. But honestly, don’t tear down an etire denomination jus because of something that I said. I am human and I ake mistakes, so believe me when I say that when I say something t may not be solidly based on Catholic doctrine. Also, as for the whole “Apologists on the internet”, trust me. I am no apologist Its jus something I aspire to be. I on’t have a degree in Catholic Theology in fact, my entire formal Catholic education spans only to eighth grade, but I am attempting to learn more so I can defend more. Also, I don’t restict my apologetics to th internet alone. I try evry day to correct misconceptions about my faith to my friends and others who are particularly against the Catholic faith. I’m involed in my parish and activley rying to bring more people in, so I’m not just talk, I also try to walk. I hadn’t realized that I was dealin with such a powerful Blogger, so I’m going to have to amp up my game. But for the time being, you keep bloggig about how much science you know, and I’ll go back to helping the Catholic Church save the world. God Bless!
Hi Mary,
I wanted to say first that although I am an Atheist, I enjoy your blog and read it regularly. Though I disagree with much of what you say, I find it extremely refreshing to be able to access the viewpoints and logical processes of those whose beliefs profoundly differ from my own. Having said this, I have a few points which I struggled with in this post.
I cannot understand the logic of Romans 1:20; I don’t know how one can ‘clearly [perceive]‘ God’s ‘invisible nature’.
I would consider that to be faulty logic personally, because you cannot perceive something which you cannot sense (given that perception is the conscious experience of sensation).
I do not have your religious background/uprbringing and therefore may not be interpreting this in the same way as you, or may be missing aspects of the interpretation. I am however, a science student, and found a number of points of contention with your summation of scientific method to be inherently flawed.
The scientific method had its foundations long before the Catholic church, beginning with the like of ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman philosophers/medical practitioners/Mathematicians like Plato and Aristotle.
I study psychology and neuroscience and can tell you that love is a science which has been studied immensely since the 19th Century, and is currently considered to be an evolutionary mechanism designed to bond families, and parent/child bonds, given the needs and immense vulnerability of human infants. Love can also be perceived in the behaviour of individuals (i.e.- bonding, protective and affectionate actions).
I cannot currently touch, smell or taste my brain…yet I know it exists (this is a similar argument against scientific method I have heard before). However, I have seen human brains, and could have and MRI or CAT scan, which would verify this rather quickly.
Your point stands though, that the realm of the spiritual cannot be verified by scientific method. We obviously draw different conclusions from this, but I would very much appreciate if you could please answer this for me:
“Does your premise that Catholicism cannot/should not be verified by scientific method not extend to every religion? And if these religions -which can only be verified through faith, religious texts and personal experiences- are exempted from scientific method as a proof, is there any way to differentiate between the ‘truth’ of these religions (when Muslims/Jewish/Hindi/etc believers would attest to ‘miracles’, just as those who believe in Catholicism would refer to saints/miracles)?”
Sorry for the length, and thanks if you did take the time to read it!
I know that you said you don’t think the creator of the meme is a real athiest and you might have already noticed this, but the meme contradicts itself. The person who made it states that he is not an athiest because he thinks science can disprove it, but then claims he is an athiest because science hasn’t proven it. Each claim is slightly different in words, but they mean the same thing. I also disagree with how the meme makes being an athiest for some of those reasons look bad. I’m not an athiest because I think it’s cool, (in fact, at my school it’s extremely uncool with my ‘righteous christian’ classmates) but I definitely credit my athiesm to extremism/opression and the fact that science can’t prove it. In the atheist community, there is nothing wrong with that. Again, I know you probably understand this, but I just wanted to speak my mind for your readers to see. Thank you.