After considering today's discussion, I feel I must disagree with the claim Matt put forward -- that although there is insufficient evidence that God exists, there is sufficient evidence to assume that s/he/it does not exist.
The conversation reminded me of a debate I had with a former roommate -- he argued that, with the weight of theories such as quantum physics and evolution, we could safely assume that there is no supreme deity; I continue to maintain that, although matter could come from nothing* and complex life can arise from single-celled organisms, some sort of deity could still exist, with quantum physics and evolution being the mechanisms by which they operate. To put it more concisely, while the abundant evidence for the aforementioned theories -- and others in similar veins -- are indeed necessary conditions for proving the nonexistence of God, I do not think they are sufficient conditions.
I've also mentioned in previous posts my views on the metaphysics of any hypothetical Supreme Being: if it exists, it is most likely completely beyond human comprehension, and therefore also beyond any sort of proof. It's easy enough to argue against the literal existence of God as conceived by the Abrahamic religions,** but if one widens the scope a bit, the issue becomes, in my opinion, much murkier.
Having written this, I can see this is probably just a difference of opinion regarding what I and the professor consider to be "reasonable doubt," and possibly also what we consider "God."
*I have almost no knowledge of quantum mechanics, and am simply going off of what I can recall of this conversation.
**Of course, as I write this now, I realize that this is probably what Matt was aiming for.
I believe that this is the true purpose of the course. Not to ingrain in you that there is not a "God" or higher deity but that there are other ways to interpret religion. Looking from a literary standpoint we sifted out all of the metaphysical claims and rightly so because who are we to argue the validity of one particular religion over another?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you're saying here; the theories of science do not actually seek to disprove God. When science is used as reason for God's non-existence it runs into the problem that you mention. We can't really perceive a deity that would be all powerful anyway, so the scope of our understanding cannot disprove a deity.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the idea that is sometimes called the "clockwork god" which would be used to say that a deity does exist, despite there being no proof. The basic idea is that some deity created our universe at a starting point, wound it up like a spring-powered watch, and just let it run. This also addresses the idea of various scientific theories being how a deity keeps the universe running smoothly: those laws of physics and such could be compared to the gears and springs inside a watch. So, while there is no god that actively interferes with our world, one could have created in order to watch what happens.
ReplyDeleteThis view is called 'Deism,' and several of our Founding Parents (notably Jefferson) subscribed to it. It neatly finesses the metaphysical question of ex nihilo beginnings, without needing to worry too much about god as a meaningful character in our lives.
DeleteBut deism is another metaphysical possibility, and precisely by removing the deity from our ongoing story, it's rather beside the point of our course.