Month: October 2009

I was recently called unreasonable and unscientific for defending my position to a friend that there is a God. The way that I discuss things with this friend, no one ever means any offense and none should be taken. I have been presented with the false dichotomy between faith and reason and been referred to a very illogical video that could be used to support solipsism. I do enjoy the back and forth though. I must address one thing that my friend has said that is one of the most unreasonable statements I have ever heard and demonstrates a huge problem that atheists and the like have with their logic. The statement is “…lack of evidence is a pretty conclusive proof of lack of existence.”

For a perfect demonstration of how this is complete bull we can take an imaginary journey. Let’s pretend that we are living 3,000 years ago anywhere you like on Earth. A person then comes to us and says, “There are invisible particles shooting through your body all the time and you have no way to see them. There are also sounds occurring all around you that humans cannot possibly hear.” This person has an extreme lack of evidence as the things described cannot be seen or heard. But we now know of and can measure many different types of particles fitting that description and we can measure sounds outside of the 20-20,000 Hz range. Did these things not exist for people because of the lack of evidence, but currently because we are so advanced and have evidence they magically do exist now? No, they always existed whether humans knew they did or not. A big problem with non-believers is that they think that we know much more than we do. We still don’t have a clue about anything and just as the people 3,000 years ago had no idea about neutrinos and super-frequencies, we today have no idea that we don’t know it or what it even relates to. It has always been a common trait of theology and science to conclude that we do not know everything and the sooner someone understands that the better.

One might say, “Well, this principle doesn’t apply to religion.” Why not? If we cannot take a principle learned from scientific discovery over the ages and apply it to all things what good is it? We have a clear and sanely indisputable case of something that no person could detect until a relatively recent date. Why would we suppose that there is not any more out there that cannot be detected by us? To stop searching and declare all things known, is to cut off scientific discovery. The hypothetical man from 3,000 years ago was completely vindicated in his belief in something he couldn’t see, hear or detect.

With a different friend I once asked, “Where did belief in God come from? If it was not given to man, why would a caveman invent an elaborate scheme of a sky man or sky men that would then restrict him from living his life in a riotous way, with lots of women, killing, plundering and other fun pastimes?” My friend’s answer, “He was the caveman who didn’t get the girls.” My response, if we had not been interrupted would have been, “So you are telling me that this beta male is clever enough to not only invent this whole religious system but to then dupe his peers into going along with it just so he could get some girls? But at the same time he is so stupid that he would not just kill the alpha male in his sleep?” What is more likely, Ug the super-genius, idiot caveman or humans still just aren’t very smart? If your answer is the former then you have proven the latter.

I believe that everything has a scientific explanation even if humans are too stupid to understand the science. I must edit the aforementioned statement to say, “lack of evidence is never conclusive proof of lack of existence.”