Can Science Disprove God

How can science disprove a higher power (or god) in general?

Science can, and only cares to, disprove definite, testable claims. So the question is not IS there a higher power, but how does some person claim to KNOW there is a higher power in ways that are observable (measurable) and then how do those observables demonstrate the reality of said higher power.

In simple terms, the one making a claim that something is real (a positive ontological claim) has the burden of proof.

For example, if the answer is "well, there is a higher power because my prayers are answered". That is a claim that can be tested. But the additional question is, is merely asking for something and then receiving actually evidence for a higher power? When you dig into these claims they usually vanish as being either Confirmation Bias (you ask for 100 things, 1 mundane item comes true - god exists!) or Wishful fulfillment (See Also: But I Had A Personal Experience).

Here it is worthwhile to study things like illusions (how our brains can be fooled) and things like Cognitive Biases.

Consider the alternative epistemic (how you approach knowledge or truth) approach, famously posed as Russell's Teapot.

So, how can science disprove a China Teapot in orbit about the sun?

Sure! I'll send a probe there, give me the coordinates.

Oh no, sorry it's invisible and undetectable (here I have Moved The Goal Post - a tactic often used by theists)

If we cannot DISPROVE the China Teapot must we then accept that it is true? Surely not.

We cannot absolutely disprove the teapot but it's an extremely reasonable position to be aTeapotist -- there almost certainly is NOT a Celestial teapot in orbit about the sun, it is no leap of faith to believe so. So saying "I disbelieve your claim of a Celestial teapot" is therefore a reasonable atheistic position - Even though it allows a (vanishingly small) possibility of being incorrect.

If, on the other hand, you believe a claim to be reasonable, but simply cannot find evidence to prove or disprove the claim then an Agnostic position may be more fitting (and many people will disagree with me on this point - and I admit to an oversimplification). Some might say that the multitude of anecdotal evidence, combined with possibly personal experiences is sufficient that we should remain Agnostic on the question. Some people see that as lending undeserved credibility to the claim.

Which label you use is of little practical difference, what really matters is your position, your evidence, and your reasoning.

I would argue that the idea of god is made-up. I base that on a deep study of ancient History and Shamanism (including my own personal 'Shamanic' experiences). And even though I have personally seen burning books, "angels and demons" (I would say entities), touched a lightray, and many other such things I absolutely do not believe in a spirit, or soul, or god, or higher power, or ghosts, or intelligent causative agency, etc. I believe in the power of my brain to create entire worlds and immersive experiences as it does while dreaming.

By most definitions I am therefore an atheist and I happy take up that position in a discussion on the subject.

But strictly philosophically speaking, I identify most strongly with Thomas Huxley's brand of Agnosticism. But not in the same way that most people use the term 'agnostic'. This is my blog entry on it if you have any interest in the philosophy of it: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-agnosticism.html

However you identify (atheist or agnostic or antitheist or antheist or all of the above) I highly recommend reading some of the works of Thomas Huxley (who was also known as Darwin's Bulldog), Bertrand Russell, and Robert G. Ingersoll.

Google Books has a lot of these older texts available for Free! [including Darwin's Origin of Species, which is also available as a free 'amateur recording' audio book: ]

Einstein, Spinoza, and God

There are many Einstein quotes on God (almost a whole book :), he was certainly indoctrinated as a child before beginning to grow out of such beliefs, and he just as certainly used the word "god" metaphorically and in ways unfamiliar to most believers.

As a former believer myself, I know how difficult it is to rid oneself of beliefs that were ingrained into your psyche through a process of indoctrination so it is not unusual for ones beliefs to evolve over time as we continue to learn.

There is also a progression in his beliefs from childhood through later in life.

1929: Einstein tells Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein:

I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
Brian, Dennis (1996), Einstein: A Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 127, ISBN 0471114596

Commentary: First we have to understand what Spinozism is because Einstein ALSO stated that he didn't feel he was a pantheist. For Spinoza, God had infinitely many properties of which only a finite number of those were represented in our Universe - but I believe the aspect that attracted Einstein's thoughts at this point in his life would have been the aspects of "unity of all that exists" and a "regularity of all that happens". And this is what Einstein was referring to when he famously quipped "God does not play dice with the universe". But it is also fairly clear that, by this, Einstein means that the Universe is ordered and lawful, not random. This is, as yet, a deep and unresolved question in physics. Spinozism also stated that only God possessed free will, with our universe (humans included) being moved solely by fixed laws.

1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated:

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

Commentary: At this point in his life, Einstein had moved further away from Spinozism towards a more Agnostic philosophy. The more we have learned the less likely any form of "god" seems but like millions of other propositions the NON-existence of a god isn't something that can be demonstrated. Neither can demonstrate that Zeus doesn't exist, nor Russell's Teapot. This is why Evidence is so critical in the formation of rational beliefs.

Closer to the end of his life Einstein had the following to say:

1954: Einstein in a letter to Eric Gutkind on January 3, 1954 wrote:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

letter to Eric Gutkind

1954: Einstein also wrote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Letter To An Atheist (1954) from Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1982) ISBN 0-691-02368-9

Commentary: I do NOT believe that Einstein was ever what we would call an Atheist - he consistently felt an adoration for the universe and believed that by understanding HOW it came to be we could understand the mind of "god" -- but absolutely and unquestionably he did not believe in a theistic (personal) god, he is adamant about that. Neither did he believe in a simple Deistic or Pantheistic concept of "god" ("I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist").

But then, Isaac Newton was an alchemist and I don't think we can hold that against his other contributions. The real shame to me that such intelligent men should have to feel social and culture pressures to conform to ignorant beliefs and suffer childhood indoctrination. Such abuses in the past offer no excuse for us to continue them into the future.

"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it." ~ Albert Einstein

Agnosticism revisited (blog response)

Why Agnosticism Is Not An Option In Our Time | Indian Atheists

My response to the above blog entry:

You seem to be only arguing against some weakly, non-intellectual usage of the term agnosticism which has been misappropriated. So you aren't arguing against Agnosticism (the noun) but being agnostic (the poorly conceived, more modern adjective).

As Michael Martin writes in "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification":

Putting aside the current popular sense of the term, "Agnosticism" was coined by T. H. Huxley in 1869. According to Huxley, "Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty."

[see also my blog: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-agnosticism.html ]

Do you have a problem with valuing reason?

Do you have a problem with demanding evidence in support of a proposition?

Those are the two foundational, POSITIVE beliefs that make up Agnosticism. ANY other claims made by an Agnostic should flow from those two positions.

On the other hand, Positive Atheism asserts that there ARE NO gods, period. Which is a position that Agnostics would reject because #1 we don't have a valid definition for "gods" we can agree on and #2 we do not have evidence that there are NONE of those things. Assuming 'god' is, at a minimum something that existed prior to our universe and was, in some fashion, responsible for the creation of it we can't really know what that means. And if someone tries to assert AGENCY as a property of that thing then I would smack them down because they have no reason or evidence to claim such a thing (so-called cosmological arguments (including Kalam) are a complete mental masturbation that neither prove nor demonstrates anything about the actual universe).

But most Atheists these days only claim, that they don't believe in a god and a few more strongly assert that it seems unlikely gods actually exist at all. Those are fine positions to hold, the second one isn't demonstrated but is not an unreasonable working assumption (as you argue in your paper). But, that's new atheism -- Agnosticism was founded during a time when Atheists asserted that they essentially knew for a fact there were no gods and Huxley felt that our ability to know things is fairly sketchy epistemologically speaking.

As an Agnostic I am PERFECTLY willing to say that the Christian religion is BULLSHIT, it is a fraud and a sham. There is EVIDENCE to support this and absolutely NO evidence to support their claims. I see no evidence Islam is any better off although I admit that I have not studied it nearly as in depth but to the point that it draws from Judaism and Christianity before it it is equally a fraud.

But the question of how the universe came into existence is unknown by either science or any human. It IS a reasonable working assumption that this is a subject we can investigate and come to understand but it's also possible that this is a truly unknowable question because there are hints that it lies across physical boundaries that sufficient information cannot cross for us to make informed decisions.

That doesn't mean that I accept anyones claims about a specific god that they claim to magically know the mind of. It doesn't mean that I accept all claims as True by default (exactly the opposite).

So I would like to know exactly who's version of 'Agnosticism' you are arguing against because your point seems to be a bit of a strawman.

Your subject is "Why Agnosticism Is Not An Option" and then you don't even define what you mean by Agnosticism and you really never even mention it -- you just make points about how we live longer and know more now.

If the title was "Why modern religions are a complete sham" your arguments would be more on point.

To sum up -- I'm an Agnostic because I:

#1 value reason

#2 value evidence or demonstrations of claims

#3 believe that our ability to know truth is very weak epistemologically speaking, but falsification is on much sounder grounds

Those with a keen wit will probably see that this aligns very strongly with the scientific method.

And finally -- I don't like the idea of forming my position as only being in opposition to some other position. I do NOT grant the Theists the default position and stand in opposition to it.

And that's why I identify as Huxley-Agnostic and not Atheist (although I still speak out very strongly against religions and superstitious beliefs). But Atheists don't make me uncomfortable EXCEPT when they try to redefine Agnosticism :)

YouTube - Great Minds: Richard Feynman - The Uncertainty Of Knowledge

YouTube - Great Minds: Richard Feynman - The Uncertainty Of Knowledge

Quote from video:

You see, one thing, is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and then many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask, "Why we are here?" and what that question might mean.

A truly brilliant mind that understands the inherent limitations of knowledge.

On Agnosticism

Agnosticism is a term that is bandied about by many, but is often misunderstood if not completely misused (at least from my perspective as a long-time Agnostic). There has certainly evolved a generic usage of the term 'agnostic' as an adjective which means to consider a proposition as unknown or unknowable. But I don't think it's reasonable for someone to claim this as their position on the question of God (hint, it's an adjective).

But as a proper noun, the -ism was coined by Thomas Huxley with a very specific definition as Michael Martin writes in "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification":

Putting aside the current popular sense of the term, "Agnosticism" was coined by T. H. Huxley in 1869. According to Huxley, Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.

As you can see from this definition Agnosticism is not just a statement about knowledge whereas atheism is a statement about belief (but the two positions can still be compatible). Agnosticism, properly understood is a Positive belief in what we might call science or skepticism. In this sense it is a very different thing from the common form of atheism today (which is a rejection of theistic beliefs, or more accurately "a lack of belief in a god or god(s)").

I personally believe that even Positive Atheism is a fairly well supportable position these days. 100% absolutely certainty is NOT the point of belief - you can reasonably believe something when it is not contradicted by the evidence and has reasonable supporting facts. For example, scientists generally believe that there are Black Holes even though they are far from absolutely proven to exist (as described by relativity) and there are many open questions.

In his paper "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?" Bertrand Russell wrote:

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

From this, I think that in Russell's day a more positive atheism was the prevailing brand of atheism whereas today the majority base their position on the lack of evidence for theism.
I generally identify myself as Huxley-Agnostic these days but I do not believe in any gods and therefore I am, in that sense, atheistic and will sometimes use that term when discussing with less discerning company. But I have always disliked the idea of defining my position in opposition to theism as I don't place that much importance on it.

Certainly Agnostics (and many others) have pondered if we can even ask questions like "does god exist" or "what is the origin of the universe". Such things might be truly unknowable -- but I would want that claim to be demonstrated before I accept it as fact!

What is Millenarian Iconoclasm?

An Introduction

Millenarianism is the belief in a coming major transformation of society (usually on a 1000 year cycle but not exclusively). Christianity is a millenarian belief structure that is, in theory, looking for the return of Christ. They have, at times, believed this so strongly that they were willing to put others to torture and even death in order to "save them" before this return. That kind of extremism is obviously exceedingly harmful to society. And I somewhat apologize for the Christian focus that will undoubtedly unfold - but it is the counter force that I know the best. But fear not, dear Reader, for my comments generally apply to all the major and minor religions of the world. Please do not take my words to apply only to Christian beliefs, where applicable please also take similar offense if you belong to some other religion.

Iconoclasm on the other hand is the destruction of the icons of religion. In this case I mean it STRICTLY in the realm of IDEAS. I absolutely reject ANY attempt to outlaw religion. I absolutely reject ANY attempt to physically harm religious people OR property.

So, my goal is to tear down some of these millenarian ideas that lead to false beliefs and I hope the reader will comment and further my own education in such matters. I plan for this to be a far ranging blog as this subject touches on every aspect of our lives in some way or another. I will be rude, out-spoken, rambling and even wrong at times. I will have typos and grammatical errors (in my defense my brain is just not wired for English, I have always struggled with it, but feel free to extract amusement where you can find it). But hopefully I can be articulate enough to get my points across.

I do not hide the fact that I am fairly liberal-minded (I suppose I have the "novelty" seeking gene) although I subscribe to no specific ideology outside of Thomas Huxley's brand of Agnosticism (which means to say that I value Reason and Evidence). I reject the wishy-washy alternative brands of agnosticism that sloshed around after Huxley's passing. But I am not a Democrat nor am I a Republican. I am a thinking human being capable of making my own judgments based on the things I value.

I will attempt to be extremely clear on where I place value so that you can assess not just my ideas on any given subject but perhaps better understand the motivations behind them. I have a hope that liberals and conservatives alike place fairly similar values on most things but we just disagree on a path that will get us there (which I believe are due to differences in Secondary values, not primary values). I am a strong constitutionalist. I am FOR small government (especially when it comes to someones Personal life). But I am also for the right solutions for the right problems. One approach does not work for all types of problems, ideologists seem to forget that.

I hope that we all want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Agnosticism will be a recurring theme because I feel that many people who call themselves an Agnostic (noun) really mean that they are agnostic (adjective) in their beliefs. These are two Vastly different positions and I will attempt to distinguish them and support my position on Agnosticism as a Positive belief in Reason and Evidence.

I am not afraid of the term atheist and, similar to Bertrand Russell, I tend to identify myself as an Atheist outside of certain groups (those who have read something on Philosophy, Huxley, Russell, etc) and can make the finer distinction between being an Atheist because you don't believe in a god and being Agnostic because you believe in Reason and Evidence. I don't want to define myself relative to something I don't accept as an ontologically valid position. I don't call myself an aTeapotist either. There are indeed an infinite number positions that I lack, so, to me, it is better to list ones I value (Reason + Evidence) than the ones I do not.

So count me among those that lack a belief in any theistic god.

Please set aside your preconceived notions of Agnosticism for the moment and try to understand what I mean by the term:

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science.

Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide13.html

Huxley coined a word for his position: "agnostic." Although this word is sometimes defined (as in the Oxford English Dictionary) as relating to the Unknowable, Huxley denied having that as source of the word.