From Peter Kreeft, PhD.:
Before we answer this question, we must distinguish five questions that are often confused.
- First, there is the question of whether something exists or not. A thing can exist whether we know it or not.
- Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.)
- Third, there is the question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge. We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. Many Christians think God's existence is like that.
- Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists, amounts to a proof. Most reasons do not. Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs. For instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable.
- Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by the scientific method, i.e., by experiment, observation, and measurement? Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs.
I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God but not to the fifth. God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.
There are many arguments for God's existence, but most of them have the same logical structure, which is the basic structure of any deductive argument. First, there is a major premise, or general principle. Then, a minor premise states some particular data in our experience that come under that principle. Finally, the conclusion follows from applying the general principle to the particular case.
In each case the conclusion is that God exists, but the premises of the different arguments are different. The arguments are like roads, from different starting points, all aiming at the same goal of God. In subsequent essays we will explore the arguments from cause and effect, from conscience, from history, and from Pascal's Wager.
4 comments:
Hi Fred.
To demonstrate the fallacy of this kind of thinking can you apply the same logic to the existence of the Flying Spaggetti Monster? Or to Allah or Vishnu or one of the other honestly revered deities common to believers in this day and age. How about to dead gods like Ra, Thor or Poseidon?
What about to beings and creatures of mythology like the fabled Cyclops or the Titans of Greek myth or to Baba Yaga or the vodyanoy of Slavic myth? How about applying it to aliens who supposedly snatch people and perform experiments on them?
How about applying it to memes like horoscopes and the movement of the planets in shaping our future? Perhaps to Tarot cards or palm reading? What of numerology?
An honest believer can answer yes to the first four points easily enough. Does that constitute proof?
No, it does not.
How does the god that you believe in present a different case?
It does not.
First off, right out of the gates, you're committing a category fallacy. God, by definition, is not in the same philosophical class as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any of your other examples of fictitious gods which you've admitted are dead (although, to be strict about it, to be "dead" you must have, at one time, been "alive") You really need to do better than this.
Second, if what you're asking is proof according to the scientific method or some other standard by which you judge these things, I'd agree: proof doesn't make sense in that case. Proof of a spiritual being of such immense power as to have created the Universe is not subject to the laws and processes of that Universe. This is by definition and deduction. There's no escape from it other than being illogical.
Thanks for the comment.
"... if what you're asking is proof according to the scientific method... proof doesn't make sense in that case. Proof of a spiritual being of such immense power as to have created the Universe is not subject to the laws and processes of that Universe."
This is a textbook example of the Special Pleading fallacy. You're claiming that knowledge exists which is beyond human understanding, thus automatically ending the debate. This is simply misdirection, not an argument.
I think you've missed the thrust of this post, Russell.
I'm (or Kreeft is, anyway) arguing about proving via the Scientific Method the existence of a specific spiritual entity known in colloquial parlance as God.
‘For the sake of argument’ is a powerful and logical analysis method and that's what being used here. For the sake of argument, say a spiritual being of that kind of power exists, would such a being be subject to discovery via the laws and processes of a Universe created by that spiritual being using methods—which by its own definition—rejects anything outside of observable, empiricism?
For the sake of argument, the answer is, of course, no.
Post a Comment