An answer to the statement,
"If I can't see it I don't believe it."
| I want to discuss a news item I came across.
Here are some of the facts. A group of Christians asked their
local government permission to erect a nativity on government
property. The government said OK. Then a group of
atheist asked if they could put up a placard. The government said
OK. Here is what the placard read: At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels. no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds. It was put up by a group named the Freedom From Religion Foundation headed by Dan Barker. Is the text of the placard rational? This placard makes it clear to us Mr. Barker's beliefs. He is a naturalist. He says, "There is only our natural world." We have all heard someone say, "If I can't see it I don't believe it." I do not think people really mean that literally. One cannot see gravity, love, logic, math, ethics or the past, for example, but I am sure atheists believe that these things exist. What they really mean is this, "What science cannot measure I do not believe in." I believe all atheists I have met hold this as true and it is part of their belief system. I am going to make the case that this is not rational and is in fact more like a religious belief than anything logical or scientific. One of my interests is the philosophy of science. What does science "do"? Science is inductive. The scientific method is to make a hypothesis, predict how a test will turn out, perform the test, use tools to measure the results, and then do it over and over again. That is science. How would science measure the non-material world? It can't. Science has no weights, rulers, or detectors for such a test. It is outside the realm of science. Here is an illustration just for fun: Scientist making a hypothesis, "Non-material things do not exist." Scientist making a prediction, "I will turn on my non-materialness detector and the gauge will display zero." Scientist performing test. "I am turning on my non-materialness detector." Scientist measuring results, "The gauge is on zero!" Scientist making conclusion, "There are no non-material things in this room." If anyone says to you science has proven there is no God, ask to see the data from the measuring device. Science cannot tell us what does not exist. In fact, according to science philosophers, science can never really be certain about anything since it is an inductive discipline. For example, science cannot tell us if the laws of thermodynamics will still be true tomorrow. All they can say is, "probably." Science has not proven God does not exist; they have merely assumed it. Science is not the only tool we have for knowing and understanding our world. We also have deductive reasoning. For example, if someone says to you, "For five bucks I will show you a square circle." Save your money because one does not exist and you do not need a scientist to prove it. We use the laws of rationality (specifically, the law of non-contradiction) to exclude the possibility of their existence. A thing cannot be a square and a circle at the same time. I have deductively proven something does not exist; the existence of a square circle is false. Without the aid of science I can deductively prove something is true. For example, I can doubt everything. But the one thing I cannot doubt is that I am doubting. And if I am doubting then I must be thinking. And if I am thinking then I must exists. I think therefore I am. So if Mr. Barker was not, and cannot be, informed by science that, "There is only our natural world," is there a sound, rational, deductive argument that can get us to this conclusion? I have spent the last several days trying to form a sound syllogism but each premise I try begs the question. Here is a reminder of a famous syllogism: Major premise: All humans are mortal. Minor premise: Socrates is a human. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal. What I am trying to get to be valid is this: Major premise: _________________ Minor premise: _________________ Conclusion: There is only our natural world. For example, I have tried this: Major premise: Things that exist are material. Minor premise: _________________ Conclusion: There is only our natural world. But the Major premises I devise are just the conclusion reworded. I can't get it to work. Why? The fact is that you cannot get to that conclusion by any sound reasoning. The best syllogism is this: Major premise: I do not like the idea of non-material things. Minor premise: I make up arbitrary assertions. Conclusion: There is only our natural world. If I were to ask this naturalist why he does not believe in God he would probably say, there is only our natural world. My next question would be, why did you make up that arbitrary rule? If he says, I have to see it (or measure it) to believe it. I would ask again, why did you make up that arbitrary rule? The only reply possible is, "well, that's what I believe." Naturalism is not reasonable; that is, it is not based on reason. It is not scientific. It is not logical. It is a "leap of faith". A religion that, in Mr. Barker's words, "...is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." |