On previous occasions, this argument elicited the counterexamples, “Well, you believe in the air, don’t you? And you believe in the atom? But you cannot see these things either.” True, I cannot see the air, but I can measure the pressure it exerts, I can watch how it reacts with other substances, and if I am an astronaut, I can travel into space and see what it’s like without air. Although the evidence does not come from my eyes, I can still observe.
An atom I can never observe. This is not surprising if I understand what an atom is. Should I try to observe a convolution integral? An atom is just a convenient theoretical model derived from empirical data, used to predict, among other things, how one substance will react chemically with another substance. At some point, the model fails and must be replaced with another. Asking if I believe in the atom makes about as much sense as asking if I believe in algebra. My answer would be simply, “It works.” At least in some circumstances. In others, I guess one could say I believe in calculus or quantum mechanics. Such things are merely concepts that model observational evidence.
The second way people justify God is the Bible, a book that somehow manages to definitively prove the existence of a real-world entity with written words. Sometimes people site historical references collaborating the events depicted in the Bible, but strangely enough I rarely if ever hear which specific events or exactly what the collaborative document says, but this may just be my ignorance. Regardless, I do not see how anyone can be that sure about something which supposedly happened that far in the past, from a book that has been copied and recopied, translated and retranslated, and interpreted and reinterpreted for thousands of years. They tell me scholars credit the Bible with as much historical accuracy as any other record from that time period, and I don’t know whether this is supposed to convince me the Bible is factual or mythological. In all probability, some of the events of the Bible took place, but not necessarily any of the miracles requiring divine intervention.
I’ve also heard the ‘proof’ that after Jesus’ death and supposed resurrection, the disciples would not renounce his divinity even under torture. Fanatics do all kinds of crazy things; just ask the guy who sweeps out the basement at the world trade center. But again, who says the disciples didn’t confess? The Bible was written by followers of Christ, who probably wouldn’t betray his memory even for the sake of the truth.
I do not presume to sum up the historical significance of the Bible in three short paragraphs, I merely seek to explain why it does not prove there is a God. I won’t bore you with moral discrepancies of the Old Testament, Abraham and Isaac, the suffering of Job (and incidental death of his innocent wife and children), etc. The Old Testament must be interpreted in the context of the times when it was written, the Bible is the work of fallible men trying to comprehend the infallible word of God, etc. I concede superior knowledge of the Bible to you in advance. Nevertheless, it does not prove God exists. All the Bible really proves is at some point in history, people believed God exists, and they wrote about it. Honestly, how much can words on a piece of paper prove?
The third way people justify God is some type of quasi-logical reasoning. The most common example is because the world exists, or because human beings exist, God must exist. Where else could all this have come from? A random, spontaneous quantum-mechanical event. A source beyond human comprehension. A unicorn’s rear end for all I know. The point is the mere existence of the universe does not imply a conscious, super-human entity, especially not one with the specific characteristics imbued in Him by various religions. Perhaps God is cruel and sadistic, creating humans just to watch them suffer. Perhaps not. But I cannot determine this simply by staring up at the night sky.
Nor by the fact that I am here to stare. The church finally accepted evolution, but I suspect it will be quite a while before the average spiritual leader comes to terms with the idea that even the basic DNA molecule can be created by the right combination of natural chemicals and energetic environmental conditions, thus eliminating the need for a Creator altogether. No one believes in Zeus anymore because science has explained the lightning bolt. However, I suspect people will always believe in some sort of deity because science is never likely to answer questions like “How did the universe begin?” or even “Where do we come from?” in a way that will be commonly understood. As you can see, this lack of information does not prove anything. The simple fact we do not currently know how the universe began does not mean God must have started it. If I assume this, I am simply defining ‘God’ as the unknown.
There are trickier quasi-logical ‘proofs’ of God as well. Regretfully, I cannot site from memory the author of this argument:
God is a being greater than which cannot be imagined.
It is greater to exist in reality and the mind than in the mind alone.
Therefore, God must exist in reality, because if he existed only in the
mind, we could imagine something greater.
In the first sentence, the word ‘God’ which I shall henceforth pronounce ‘umlaut’ is defined as a being greater than which cannot be imagined. At present, an umlaut is a hypothetical object, as we have yet to determine whether or not there is a being greater than which cannot be imagined. The trick comes in when the definition of ‘greater’ is misplaced. Does it mean taller? Heavier? More intelligent? Or a combination of many attributes, some type of weighted average? In light of a specific meaning for ‘greater’, the first sentence might read, “An umlaut is a being taller than which cannot be imagined.”
Is it taller to exist in reality and the mind than in the mind alone? If an umlaut exists in reality, it has some specific height, and we can imagine something taller. This violates the definition of an umlaut, therefore it must not exist in reality. The same line of reasoning can be repeated with any (and every) attribute one can name. So the umlaut remains a hypothetical object, a Platonic ideal akin to infinity, the highest imaginable number.
Perhaps it is taller to exist in reality. Perhaps a thought in my mind is not tall at all, because it does not really exist. In this case, the proof boils down to:
An umlaut is the tallest being.
It must exist in reality.
Therefore, an umlaut is the tallest being that exists in reality.
Obviously, an umlaut is some type of giraffe. The original argument uses ‘greater’ in the hypothetical sense in the first sentence, and in the giraffe sense in the second sentence, and then tries to draw a conclusion in the third without adhering to either definition. The ‘proof’ is an attempted shotgun marriage between two contradictory ideas, and the meager dowry is the fact both ideas are named ‘greater.’
The fourth way people justify God is by claiming they have had personal contact with him, in a direct or indirect manner. Most people claim indirect evidence; they can simply ‘feel’ in their hearts that God exists. To quote Masaaki Hatsumi,
“When I say we desire that something be a certain way, I do not necessarily mean that we want it to be that way. We want to think it is that way. If you think of a certain man as your enemy, then anything he says or does will be examined and found to be an insult or threat. The identical words or actions on the part of a beloved friend would carry far different meanings. We have a saying: ‘Suspicious eyes see only evil.’ The unenlightened will see only what they desire to see.”
I do not claim to be enlightened, but I do claim to value truth above all else. Undoubtedly, the existence of God is a very desirable idea. The assumption that our lives are part of a master plan imbues them with new meaning, and the assurance of life after death is a comforting thought from which we can draw strength. In addition, if I believe I am a professional athlete, I will be very confident. I will also be crazy. The mere fact that I want something to be true (or the conviction that it SHOULD be true) does not make it true, no matter how easily or thoroughly I fool myself.
And then there are those who claim direct evidence of God, saying He has spoken to them, or even appeared in the flesh. Believe it or not, these are the people I respect the most. I will not accuse such a person of lying any more than I would accuse any person of lying; in the absence of any evidence refuting their claim I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Direct contact is the best reason I can think of to believe in God. If He appeared before me, I would certainly believe in Him. Unfortunately, I have not had the pleasure of such an experience as of today, and I cannot be sure those that claim to are telling the truth. Perhaps He will reveal Himself to me tomorrow.
