Falsifying the Unfalsifiable
I’m reminded of the old – and classic – Simpsons episode with Stephen Jay Gould, in which the judge orders “religion to stay five hundred yards away from science,” but in which Gould acknowledges that he was unwilling to test whether the apparent bones of an angel were real or fake. I’ve long thought this was one of the most poignant Simpsons episodes; I also think it (ie, the episode as a whole) does a good job illustrating the way in which faith (which as you correctly note is synonymous in many ways with trust) should not – and cannot – attempt to masquerade as science, even as science should not – and cannot -seek to take the place of religion.
I think this old Simpsons reference gets to the crux of the problem, not only with respect to overly evangelistic atheists, but also to overly evangelical, uhh, evangelicals. It also explains why I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in its original incarnation in the context of the Kansas Intelligent Design debate, was perfectly within the realm of legitimate dialogue…and why its occasional subsequent use as a way of mocking religion is not.
I think Chris is absolutely correct when he writes that “faith=trust,” and that “I’ve never met a human who does not trust in something or someone.” This, to me, is the central issue – ultimately, even the most hardcore atheist must put a certain amount of blind trust in SOMETHING, even if that trust is something as fundamental to atheism as the idea that reality exists and can be understood purely through rationality.
But whereever one chooses to place their trust, the fact is that whether that trust is properly placed is more or less unfalsifiable, and not subject to scientific proof or disproof. For the religious person, there is simply no way to prove through science that god exists or does not exist – as long as there is something in the universe that cannot rationally be explained, there is a basis for trusting in the existence of god. For the atheist, there is likewise simply no way to prove through science that god exists or does not exist – as long as a scientific or rational explanation for anything in the universe is theoretically possible, there is a basis to trust in the ability of reason to explain everything, and no basis to trust in the existence of god.
February 3, 2009 77 Comments
Thomas Aquinas Meets The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Which is too bad in my opinion since, though it may seem strange to some, I’m hugely in favor of atheist religion creation. Just done well and one that need not be anti-religious. I generally agree with Freddie’s original point that the so-called New Atheists are in many ways uncivil and worse at times illiberal. But so far as pastafarianism goes (Jah Pastafarai!!!) I think it’s too bad it doesn’t learn or rather practice a deeper atheist spirituality.
Atheism as such simply means not having the gods (theos) that everybody else worships at a certain time. When Christians first came on the scene, they were called atheists because they didn’t worship the Greco-Roman-Near Eastern polytheistic pantheon.
The real question is what god(s) those who are a-theos don’t have. What theos are they “a”-ing in other words? [Read more →]
February 2, 2009 27 Comments
