Why history is a better argument against God than science

Even though evolution is clearly an elegant explanation for a completely natural emergence of life on this planet, the existence of the universe (at this stage) is not yet explained and it is really impossible to dismiss (however unlikely) that is was created by a supernatural being. One could plausibly argue, as many early Christians did, that the Genesis story is a metaphor demonstrating the creator's supremacy over the universe. Even if not all of the Bible is accurate or literally true, the basic idea of the God it describes could well exist and have created a universe he knew would evolve a certain way and revealed himself though fallible humans who distorted his message (though one wonder why he would choose to reveal himself in this way). We still don't know enough about science to really completely disprove such a figure; although we can be pretty sure an interventionist God doesn't exist, one who inspired humans indirectly (perhaps through an energy field, or perhaps through "coding" the universe to reveal himself or make miracles at certain periods of time) could well still. Highly, highly unlikely, but we have no proof refuting it. It is after all a very vague and nebulous notion.

But that this creator (if it does exist) is not the God of the Bible is best refuted by studying the history of the Bible itself. There, one can clearly see how the concept of God/YHWH/elohim (fascinatingly) evolved from the king of the Canaanite pantheon (tribal days), to a warmongering national God (Isreal gains supremacy in the Levant), to the defender of the oppressed and ruler of the universe (Israel goes into exile and themselves become oppressed, at which point he also began to take on a more poetic and spiritual dimension). Just as an author creates a story, so he evolved and was woven, not a creator but a perfect example of the creative process at work - a process of evolution.

Christians, Jews, etc. could probably say the God of their Bible revealed himself over a long period of time through fallible human hands, or that he did not creative the universe in the way literally described in the Bible. That doesn't destroy the possible existence of God of the Bible himself, though it does call it into question. The only thing it challenges is how God went about things. God is really too nebulous an idea to falsify. But when a close look at the Bible itself (and we're not just talking about its clear borrowings from Mesopotamian mythology) clearly demonstrates that the concept of God himself has changed (the first catalyst for him becoming the God of the universe was his temple in Jerusalem, the only temple he had because the rulers of Judah wanted full control over the worship of their national god, being destroyed - Canaanite gods "lived" in their temples) it becomes pretty clear that God and not just the contents of his universe is far better explained by evolution, albeit of a different kind.

Does this destroy the subjective experienced God of the mystics? No. They have no problem with it arising from biology, from history, from an extension of the human need. Religion is not just a delusion, but also wired into us...many do feel a deep spiritual hunger because of their biology. There is nothing wrong with this. In many ways, I am a deeply spiritual person and get a lot out of religious ritual (including the Mass and especially Eucharist of my own Christianity; the "personal relationship with Christ" and the story about how he suffered and died for me is a story of tremendous beauty). I can appreciate the great emotional power of religion without actually believing in it literally. And literal belief is not a viable option for any intellectually honest people who really study science and history (especially the history of the Bible and the ever changing worldviews nominal Christians, Jews, etc. have held over the centuries) and recognize what its implications are.

Science may not be able to falsify a God outside it, but when the history of this God was partly by personal and nationalistic interests and natural adaptation to historical events, it becomes clear that the Bible was not even inspired by God, himself created by the same events that shaped the Scriptures. Like everything else, they are products of evolution.

 

I don't think many religious folks realize how dire the label "unfalsifiable" is in the scientific
community. And its not really appealing to make a point by comparing what someone sees
as the best thing in their life to fairy's and unicorns, but that is really what it comes down
to. Religion is not a subject of interest in scientific circles beyond sociology and the like
because the word 'religion' describes a category that is scientifically incoherent, or as you
so adequately put it: unfalsifiable. Its also the reason why so many tenets seen as
religions are classified as philosophies. The line is very very blurry to the untrained eye.

I know my saying so might not fall on ears sensitive to atheism, but we don't
need "better" arguments against god, or any argument against god at all. The truth of a
claim has to be demonstrated, else we are arguing against the existence of unicorns and
leprechauns, which is a waste of time.

 

If you didnt believe in GOD you wouldnt give a shit, GOD would be the least thing you would argument about..

 

I have my own love and hate relationship with God.

The way I see it,
If God doesn't exist, then that explains the pathetic mess of things here. But it doesn't explain the vastness of the creation of the universe.

If God does exist, then God is an asshole. Because God can do something to stop the suffering on this planet and bring some real justice. But instead, God chooses to do nothing. I've often said that I would love to put God on trial for the crime of child neglect. Afterall, e put parents in jail for this type of abuse.

 

Science doesn't need to disprove anything.

Religion needs to prove itself to science.

That's just how this whole "sanity" thing works.

 

Politics on the Internet. We just go ahead and do it. What religious context do we have to know what we're doing?

After-all in those old shy days of the internet when it was a contest to appropriate at one another and then wonder if the effect was that we knew our personal contacts better than the enemies of justice.... after-all we were deciding to be part of our own little worlds of co-habitation.

 

There are different levels of proof. Scientific proof is the most rigorous, followed by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal trials, but most people realize that even these levels of proof are not infallible (guilty people go free every day), and most reasonable people use lesser levels in making important life decisions. In civil lawsuits, we award money damages and the custody of children on the basis of the preponderance of evidence (more likely than not); we arrest people on the basis of in regulation, we set standards of exposure to pollutants and toxic substances on the basis of a substantial evidence (enough to convince a reasonable person), and in politics we try to have informed opinions by sifting through the smokescreen of doubletalk. Should we have no political opinions and avoid voting because our opinions can't be subjected to scientific proof? That decision would have profound consequences if enough people do it. "Hard science" fans often sneer about history, sociology and philosophy, but the alternative to non-rigorous knowledge is often none at all.

Hard scientists are reluctant to mess with things that don't lend themselves to rigorous testing. That's both a strength and limitation (note I didn't say weakness) of science. By ruling out explanations based on the supernatural and purpose, science has been able to make considerable headway in giving us reliable knowledge, and elegant, refutable scientific theories--and that's certainly not chopped liver. But (1) all science rests on assumptions or postulates that might simply be wrong, however useful they might be; (2) science is mainly concerned with avoiding what statisticians call Type 2 errors (believing a falsehood) than Type 1 errors (rejecting a truth for insufficient evidence); and (3) scientists tend to avoid altogether problems which are unlikely to bring payoffs in funding and enhanced reputation.

Let's consider these briefly. All science is based on what Santayana calls "animal faith"--that there is a universe out there that is guided by regularities and isn't actively trying to deceive us. Not all intelligent people believe this, but there is certainly a strong consensus. "Strong consensus" and refutable proposition are two different things. Much of the case "Young Earth" creationism makes against evolution and geology is based on challenging standard methodologies, such as radiometric dating or the identification of transitional species. Using these methods is a matter of judgment (which I accept as reasonalbe), not of scientific "proof". The Big Bang Theory has been criticized by scientists for ignoring the theory of an oscillating universe and for the "horizon problem", which may or may not be solved by the theory of an expanding universe. Supernatural and teleological explanations were banished from science, not because they were shown to be false, but because they seemed to be blind alleys in the search for facts that fit with the rest of scientific knowledge. Avoiding Type 2 errors is a useful enterprise, for example in keeping us safe from dangerous or ineffective drugs. But of course it also keeps us from drugs that could save our lives and that some desperate terminal patients might like to try.

And funding opportunities and reputation enhancement are real concerns to anyone making a career of science. Daniel Dennett acknowledges, for example, that "There are large gaps in our detailed of the evolution of many complex features..." and he explains this is a result of the reluctance of young researchers to provide proof for things most scientists don't doubt to begin with, even though the proof is not there. (Dennett and Plantigna (p34).

The question then is whether or not less testable knowledge (e.g., philosophy, metaphysics, social science, etc.) has value. The "practical" value of the endeavor has been questioned. Why think about anything that isn't immediately useful in the quest for survival, getting laid and making money? But most atheists and religious folks I've encountered have some model or paradigm in their heads that gives them a sense of confidence in making their way through life. I think being truly in touch with reality is to realize that we're betting our lives on these assumptions, and should take responsibility for them, while being open to revising them in light of new evidence and arguments. And I also submit that it's better to bet on propositions that seem to be supported by substantial evidence, experience and good judgment than unsupported ideas (e.g., that Christians will be raptured on October 21 or the world will end in December, 2012.) I agree with Socrates that "The unexamined life is not worth living", and with J.S. Mill that it's better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.

 

It is honesty, not proof, that distinguishes grandeur from grandiosity.

 

Was that Emil Durkheim's view? No reason.

 

Honesty is an acquired taste.

 

I don't think I have once engaged with a debate with a theist in RL (or at least I could count with my fingers). I have no interest in trying to convince people to become atheists (unless they held harmful religious beliefs, in which case trying would probably not be a great idea). My post was actually inspired by a poll asking what had caused people to lost their faith in god. "Science" was by far the most popular response, which surprised me because to me it is really history that completely demolishes the possibility.

I disagree that arguing the existence of unicorns is a "waste of time" when people hold beliefs in unicorns and are themselves ready to debate them. NO matter how absurd the belief may seem, the point of a debate is not just to "come to the truth" yourself but to change minds (though sadly the way many are held it seldom goes that way). As I said, I seldom do this in RL, but I don't think making these arguments is inherently pointless when there are minds that could be opened. Because the historical argument basically directly disproves literal belief God for most reasonable people (mystical interpretations notwithstanding of course), I believe it is a very good one to use, as the scientific arguments can simply be countered with "who made the universe then"? I know you can just counter "who made God", but it doesn't really destroy the possibility of him existing if a person is stubborn. Science only disproves the Bible indirectly (ie., miracles are against the laws of physics), but one ould just say "well, God can break the laws of physics since he made them". (I know that is ridiculous, but remember we are trying to convince, not conclusively show something that is obviously false to be false for the sake of it...in that case clearly you are right it's a waste of time). But if you can just show people the history of the concept of God himself, directly exposing it as something invented by humans, the possible replies become much weaker. Why would God reveal himself in such a way that made it seem as if he were an improvised concept developed over the ages by humans, created in no small part because of political changes?

If you're not interested in making the arguments, fine; those are just my thoughts about which arguments might be better to use (contrary to many atheists' preconceptions).

 

Well grandeur will leave you speechless and grandiosity requires much description.

I don't know what taste has to do with it, honesty being consistency.

There is a saying that god is not mocked, not to say there is or is not a god, but that we cannot escape the effects of our own thinking.

 

I know very well that the truth of science isn't predicated on being able to
convince everyone. Like you said- to change someone's mind you have to
appeal to a sensitivity of the listener; Either make them receptive, or play on
an aspect of receptivity they already hold.

I don't have an audience large enough to warrant the demands of most of the
religious folks I talk to, so you'll have to excuse me if I act like a victim of
circumstance. I can only plunge into the abyss to pull another out- kicking and
screaming- so many times before I'm content with waiting for another to lead
them out en masse.

 

First of all, thanks for the really fine post. It's insightful and I mostly agree with it. I'd only qualify it a little by saying that history or study of the Bible never "clearly demonstrates" anything. It's mostly a matter of inference and judgment. Mine agree with yours, but what is clear is that well-educated, otherwise intelligent people aren't going to be convinced. We face the same problem in politics. Was Obama born in the United States? After he released the long form of his birth certificate I said to a "Birther" friend, well at least we won't have to argue about that issue anymore. Boy was I wrong! My friend pointed out that it said on the certificate Obama was "African", and back then they would have said "Negro" and the hospital he was supposed to be born in didn't even exist at the time. I said back, Obama's father was Kenyan, so that may be why they used the term "African", and the non-existence of the hospital sounds like something Glenn Beck made up. And so it goes: yada, yada, yada.

I find it hard to understand how any rational person can say that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God, but I live in a part of the country where lots do, and some of them have Ph.Ds. If you check out the Christian Sanctuary, you'll find some of the most ingenious arguments imaginable justifying this position. For example, not long ago, I had a go around with one who maintained that the earth is about 6.000 years old. This figure he derived from Biblical genealogies. When I pointed out that there were impressive neolithic (not to mention paleolithic) artifacts that were older than that by millenia, he said no there weren't. When I cited paleontologists, archaeologists, and historians to back up my claim, he said they were all wrong--duped by Darwinism. Their radiometric dating techniques were unsound. And when I said that would mean that whole faculties of scientists at major universities who devoted their lives to uncovering the evidence and subjecting it to peer reviewed corroboration, he remained unimpressed. Likewise, it's obvious to me that the accounts of the Resurrection in the gospels are inconsistent with each other, but there, too, I underestimated the power of human rationalization. There comes a point where we have to follow our best judgment and realize that some folks are, as the Catholics put it, "invincibly ignorant."

I do agree with you that the science of the subject is far from settled. I've been reading on both sides this summer, especially two physicistsrofessor Paul Davies, who emphasizes the scientific evidence supporting a Designer Universe, and Professor Viktor Stenger, who emphasizes the evidence contradicting it. I hope that by the time I get through the summer and digest all their books, I'll have this God business solved, lol. As for the history, the literalist view of the Bible is hard to swallow,but the ideals of justice and compassion that emerge from the Prophets and Jesus are, in my estimation, self-evidently true.

And by the way, I'm one of those Christians who takes a historical-metaphorical approach to the Bible--a Jesus Seminar style Christian without the creeds and miracles. As Borg says: "the Bible should be taken seriously, but not literally." I'm basically a humanist in my admiration for human intellectual achievements. I'm skeptical that human history is guided by a Higher Intelligence, or that it will ultimately come to a good end, but I find it as amazing as the regularity and order in the universe.

 

I'm wondering if you meant to say "this creator...is not the God of the Bible is best refuted..." If the idea that "this creator is not the God" is refuted, that would seem to imply that this creator is the God of the Bible. Is that what you mean to say? I thought you were making the opposite point. It is a little confusing.

I agree with your point that science is consistent with Something Big Out There, which might be a higher intelligence that created the universe. A recent example is Spitzer's New Proofs for the Existence of God, in which he presents a tightly reasoned case, consistent with science, for the existence of a creative unmoved mover and addresses the problem of infinite regression raised by Dawkins and others. But he makes no explicit effort to relate this entity to Yahweh, Allah or other deity currently worshipped, nor does he show that it knows or cares about our lives--which is what most believers are concerned about. There is a literature on Process Theology that features an evolving God who is not omnipotent or omniscient as we usually think of those properties. To me, it's less important that there is such an entity than that there could be one, consistent with Dewey's concept of God as the summation of human idealism and Tillich's Ground of Being.

 

I take that as a falsifiable proposition. It could presumably be falsified by producing a number of respected scientists who are interested in religion and take it seriously. For example, Dr.Francis Collins, geneticist,former head of the Human Genome Project,now director of the National Institutes of Health, described by the Endocrine Society as "one of the most accomplished scientists of our time' for his discoveries of disease genes, and author of The Language of God;Dr. Kenneth Miller, biology professor at Brown University, leading researcher on evolutionary biology and the structure and function of membranes, leading critic of Intelligent Design, devout Catholic and author of In Search of Darwin's God; physicist and Temlpleton Prize winner Paul Davies, who has written more than twenty books on god and science; biochemist, Templeton Prize winner, and Anglican priest, John Polkingore; to name a few. Atheist Viktor Stenger comments: "A huge body of literature now exists in which authors with strong theological and scientific credentials argue that traditional religion, particualrly Christianity, can be made consistent with all scientific knowledge." If you read their works, it might broaden your outlook on science and religion. Refutability is great!

 

Christian describes 40,000 different things, naturally I wouldn't know what
it would mean to make 'it' compatible with science. And frankly, I don't really
care how consistent an individual can make his belief if its going to pander
to a sick society. God is the best marketing ploy I know about and
I'm really not impressed when I can find the exact spot in all of the books
that make the mistake (usually a non sequitur). I'm done with reading science
vs religion as well as science with religion books. I've got nothing left to learn
from that category of literature.
It could just be impatience speaking though. I mean it was 400 years ago they
were burning people at the steak for saying the sun was the center of the solar
system. 50 years ago was the civil rights movement, and today we are still
oppressing gay people and censoring the media because people are afraid of
Muslim retribution in one way or another. It makes even more clear how little
time has passed since we descended from the trees.

"Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" rings very, very true.

 

But the measurement of the means to look at the opportunity to balanced thermal and working utility of the best and most simplified nature of Things.

Religion tried in most cases to understand people's needs to watch, grow and recognize each other's goings on by the clock or by the private withdrawal from the political sphere. Everybody like Descartes knew for instance that Politics was knowing borders of Nations, knowing the capacities of humanity to do their business successfully because of culture and nationality, no matter what Nature they had advantage to discourse. Nature was only an opportune courage from the struggle to reaiize the true Facts were about Man, not Nature.

Islam knew advantage from Man for and against Nature; Chiratianity slouches instead uncertain of Eternity.:love:

 

You're welcome; glad you appreciated it.


What you have said is very true, but I feel the implications of a oriented scrutiny of the Bible cut to the heart of something more important to traditional Abrahamic religion than science does (at least at present), namely showing how God as we understand him came to be - by extension showing the Abrahamic God's origin as a human invention - as opposed to merely demonstrating why science has no need for him (which is as far as the best scientific arguments against his existence have gone, and which does not really disprove him outright. I have certainly never seen a compelling scientific argument for why God cannot exist; philosophy is a better place to turn to for that, and in that field we do see some extremely good arguments from both sides, as well as many horrible ones).


But again, you are right; that depends on people accepting the veracity of that interpretation of the Bible. Some otherwise intelligent people do not. However, a lot of people are simply unaware of this reading of the Bible. Even skeptics often see it as a), fabricated, or b), a distorted, mythologized version of historical events. This, of course, as opposed to the very complicated, gradual process full of revision by different powers with their own agendas; from the poetic to the political. If more people knew about these interpretations and the (I believe) compelling evidence in the text itself that supports them, those who are really open to having their minds changed may come closer to doing so. Just because many people will plug their ears doesn't mean no one will listen or that no one will be convinced, and for that reason I believe there is good reason to try. Some ideas spread slowly, but they still spread and wouldn't at all if no one bothered.

This is true. You have to pick your battles.

Yeah, you've got me straight. The "not" was a typo.

Very much agreed. Thanks for mentioning Dewey and Tillich, two thinkers I agreed with long before I had heard of them (basically what you get when you take that biological drive for spiritualisty and remove the literal belief, replacing it with a relevant abstraction). Emotionally, I am very much drawn to Dewey's God and this type of spiritual feeling has lingered with me long after I abandoned tradtional Christianity.

All in all a very insighful reply and thank you for responding.

 

I don't know about 40.000, but there sure are a lot of them, and some (especially the fundamentalist variants), are impossible to reconcile with science. My only beef with some atheists is that they sometimes make sweeping statements suggesting that science has disproved religion, when that would be true mainly of literalist approaches and some of the pseudoscientific New Age variants. I can understand the "give 'em and inch" viewpoint, but it runs the risk of making atheists look as rigid and unreasonable as Evangelical Christians in dismissing reasonable arguments.