A rather interesting
question to consider regarding atheism and theism is this one: is
either theism or atheism verifiable or falsifiable?
First, let us consider
theism. A scientist might claim that theism is not verifiable, on the
grounds that there are no experiments or observations that we might
make that would show the existence of some type of deity. But this
claim is not valid, and is typically based on a presumption of the nonexistence
of any deity. When talking about whether something is verifiable, the
rules of the game are that we temporarily suppose the thing to be
true, and then we imagine whether there are any observations we might
make that would verify such a thing is true.
Following such a protocol,
we can indeed imagine observations that might confirm the existence
of a deity, if a deity exists. For one thing, it is possible that such
a deity might reveal itself in some spectacular way to the entire
world. An act such as writing a giant glowing message in space or
causing the sun to blink out a message in Morse code would presumably
cause us to have an observation that would verify the existence of a
deity. It is also possible that when we die, we will have some
supernatural experience that would qualify as a verification of the
existence of a deity. Indeed, some people who have near-death
experiences claim to have had such experiences.
So theism is verifiable,
in the sense that hypothetically there are observations that we might
make that could verify the existence of a deity. I may note here
that there is no sound basis for distinguishing between that which is
verifiable and that which is “scientifically verifiable.” The
term “scientifically verifiable” implies a kind of conformity or
similarity to existing methods of scientists, or the current
assumptions of scientists. But when talking about what is verifiable
or falsifiable, there is no reason why we should make such a
restriction. It is all too possible that something might be verified
or falsified in some way that does not conform to existing methods or
expectations of today's scientists.
Now let's consider: is
theism falsifiable? An atheist might argue that theism has already
been falsified, because there is so much evil and suffering in the
world. But this argument is not valid for two reasons, a simple
reason and a complex reason. The simple reason is that evil or
suffering could never show the nonexistence or unlikelihood of any
deity. At best it might show the nonexistence or unlikelihood of an
omnipotent deity, leaving unscathed the possibility of a deity with
finite power. The complex reason is that there is always the
possibility that earthly experience may be some tiny thread in a vast
tapestry, one that might include a happy afterlife for everyone. It could be our earthly experience is some microscopic fraction of
some commendable million-year plan in which suffering is necessary
for diversity, growth, variety of experience, moral freedom and other
good things (and necessary for the avoidance of the evils discussed here). It is possible that if we were to understand
this million-year “big picture,” we might conclude that earthly
suffering is quite compatible with the existence of an omnipotent
deity.
Considering the two
reasons listed above, we must conclude that theism is not
falsifiable. Even if we imagine the most disastrous observations we
can imagine, they would not actually qualify as proof that no deity
exists. For example, imagine an asteroid strikes our planet and kills
almost everyone, or perhaps every single human. While that might
cast much doubt on the idea of an omnipotent deity who rules over our
planet with loving care, it would leave unscathed the possibility of
a somewhat less than omnipotent deity who might not have the power or
inclination to watch over each of billions of planets in the
universe. In addition, there would still be the possibility that an
omnipotent deity does exist, and that such a disaster is some
necessary part of some million-year plan in which devastating
setbacks are a vital ingredient. The possibility that everyone will
have a happy afterlife despite such a disaster takes the power out of
emotional arguments such as “but no deity would allow the little
children to die.”
It seems, therefore, that
theism is verifiable, but not falsifiable. We can imagine some
hypothetical observations that might cause us to say with great
conviction, “Now that proves it – there is a deity.”
But we cannot imagine some hypothetical observations that might
warrant us saying with great conviction, “Now that proves it
– there is no deity.”
Now what about atheism: is
it verifiable, falsifiable, or neither? The points I have just made
about theism not being falsifiable can be used to help establish that
atheism is not verifiable. For atheism to be verifiable, we would
have to make some observation or observations that show that no deity
exists. Such observations could not be made. Even if we were to
witness the most horrible tragedy here on our planet, that would
still leave undamaged the possibility that the universe was designed
or created by a still-existing deity with less than perfect power,
who lacks the power to guarantee pain-free conditions on each of the
countless planets in the vast universe. Even the possibility of an
omnipotent deity would still be standing, because there would still
be the possibility that the terrible tragedy was a necessary
ingredient in some million-year plan too complex for us to understand
(and it would still be possible that all of the loss of life wasn't
really a final snuffing out of consciousness, because of the
possibility of an afterlife).
So atheism is not
verifiable. But is it falsifiable? Yes, it is. We could falsify
atheism merely by having some observations that might convince us
that some deity exists. It is easy to imagine how such observations
could occur – for example, there might appear a giant “God
exists” sign in outer space that stretched millions of miles. Or one day the world might be visibly taken over by some divine power. Or after dying you might see some magnificent heavenly scene that would be sufficient evidence of a deity's existence.
Now, an atheist might
agree that atheism is falsifiable, and might claim this as a
strength. He might argue that this shows that atheism is a really
scientific claim. It has been argued that all really scientific
claims are falsifiable.
But this would seem to be
a case of trying to claim an advantage that isn't really there. For one,
thing it is not actually true that all valid scientific claims are
falsifiable. If Karl Popper thought this, then he didn't think
things through. Here is one example of a major scientific theory that
could never be falsified: the theory that extraterrestrial life
exists. If we
lived in a tiny little universe, we might be able to falsify such a
theory, by quickly exploring all planets. But we live instead in a
universe of billions of galaxies, a large fraction of which have
billions of stars. Even if you imagine a fleet of a million
warp-speed spaceships traveling throughout the universe trying to falsify the theory that extraterrestrial life exists, we must imagine that such a search would take
many millions of years to check all the countless trillions of planets scattered throughout billions of galaxies. Even if such a search found no
extraterrestrial life, it would still not falsify the theory that
extraterrestrial life exists. For it would still be all too possible
that the search had failed to find extraterrestrial life that was
hiding or hard-to-find, and it would still be all too possible that
while such a search (spanning millions of years) was going on, some other extraterrestrial life
had arisen on the planets that had already been checked.
Too many of these to falsify the theory that extraterrestrial life exists
So the theory that
extraterrestrial life exists cannot be falsified. This example shows
that it just isn't true that all scientific theories can be
falsified. So the fact that atheism could be falsified does not give
the atheist anything to brag about.
None of these
considerations touch on whether atheism is more plausible than
theism. But these considerations may provide a kind of pragmatic
reason for not investing too much time in a thesis such as atheism.
Our earthly life is short, and it is perhaps best for us to
concentrate on claims that might one day be verified through some
confirmation event. Just as it may make little sense for a scientist
to devote decades on some physical theory that could never be
verified, it may (from a purely practical standpoint) be inadvisable for an atheist to devote great energies to
a doctrine that can never ultimately result in him being able to say:
that proves it, I was right all along.
No comments:
Post a Comment