Print

[Ido]

It's likely that this  have been debated here before, but hell, I'm bored, so why not again?

Many New Atheists claim that God is refuted by science. I'm not talking only about the public figures. The New Atheist crowd often say the same. Personally, I couldn't disagree more.

Science may be able to say something about arguments for the existence of God or about certain attributes people associate with their God, but it can't refute the existence of each and every God.

When I say that people often tell me that only the deistic God, the one devoid of any real religious content of moral teachings and prohibitions, can survive scientific inquiry. But having been raised in an Jewish Orthodox environment, I think I was exposed to more sophisticated theologians than my fellow atheists abroad.

For example, Gods like the one promoted by the MaHaRaL in the 16th century, or Rabbi Judah Levi way back in the 11th century would be irrefutable by science today. These were concepts of Jewish Gods created in such a way that does not allow science to refute it, consisting of many special pleadings.

The arguments for these God's existence can be easily refuted using philosophical arguments and critical thinking, but science will not help here.

In any case, the word refutation is misleading here. I can't prove God does not exist. I can only prove there's no evidence to support His existence, by philosophically or empirically contradicting the arguments for it. And yet many atheists make this jump from the "I don't believe in God", recognizing the possibility He may exist, to the absolute "God does not exist". I find it weird.

What's your opinion? Can science refute God? Is God refutable at all?

[seaotter]

Obviously we can define a god into existence, but depending on the particulars of the god you would prepose it can be tested and rejected through science. With the backbending that religions have been doing since the advent of modern science it's pretty clear that this is the case.

[David E.]

Science can refute the Need for God. 

[Trinoc]

Every time one version of God is refuted a new one is invented to take its place. We will no more be able to disprove God to True Believers than we could prove that there are no invisible fairies living at the bottom of my garden. That doesn't mean I'm not justified in concluding from the lack of evidence that there are none.

[spacemonkey]

Well, for starters, how do you define God?

In order to study something, you have to define what it is. The problem in this case is that today, everyone has his own personal definition of god, what he can and cannot do, his attributes, etc. So, the question isn't "Can science refute God?" but "Can science refute this particular god?".

There is just no possible way to refute all gods because a non-existing entity can always be defined after refutations are done, in such a way as to barely escape refutation. Some gods cannot be refuted to begin with, because they actually do exist. For example, some people claim that god is nature. Nature, certainly exists.



Now, a god such as the god of Christianity, a god which supposedly interacts and has interacted in history, should leave evidence of his existence. The more god is supposed to interact, the easier it should be to prove his existence.

For example, if I claim Unicorns exist in front of my house, it's pretty easy to go there and find them or not. The "You can't prove a negative" is all good until you make an actual material claim. If I say God answers prayer and prove that prayers do nothing, then I've proved that God, if he exists, doesn't answer prayers.


Now, to be consistent, if I define God to:
- Answer prayers
- Intervene in history
- Be all powerfull
- Hold atoms together

If I prove any of those to be false, I have positive evidence against the existence of God. Redefining god or saying "Well, maybe god exists but he doesn't answer prayers" isn't a valid move, becuase of what I said previously.


So yes, God can be refuted by science, and, science does indeed refute the existence of some of the more popular definitions of god.

[Evil Eye]

Refuting God is akin to never being able to break a world record long jump.

We know that no one on this current Earth can running long-jump a mile.

There is a tipping point of extreme.

So where that demarcation line is, keeps getting tighter and tighter.

What do they do?

Instead of measuring in centimeters, they measure millimeters.

And eventually they will have to measure in smaller increments to determine who went farther.

There is always a mathematical gap.

Half way is ALWAYS halfway to the whole.

[Belgarath]

Science can ask for the evidence for the existence of god and then evaluate that evidence (or lack thereof)

Then it's all a matter of perspective.  If your a rationalist, you then can say 'I see no evidence for the existence of a God, therefore I do not need such a construct'

A believer will say, 'I don't need evidence, I need faith.  I have faith, therefore I believe God exists'

[seaotter]

Not sure I'm agnostic atheist anymore. I know there is no god for particular claims, although I am agnostic in that nothing can be established beyond all doubt.

[Ido]

Every time one version of God is refuted a new one is invented to take its place. We will no more be able to disprove God to True Believers than we could prove that there are no invisible fairies living at the bottom of my garden. That doesn't mean I'm not justified in concluding from the lack of evidence that there are none.

From the lack of evidence for something you can't conclude anything factual like "there are no gods". That statement is saying something negative, as if you have some sort of evidence for it. But you don't.

The best example I know that demonstrate it is the following. There's a box with unknown content. A friend comes a tell us there's gold inside. We ask him, "How do you know?", and he says the owner of the box told him that. We call the owner, and he says he didn't talk with our friend, and hangs up the phone.

Does it mean there is no gold in the box? No. There very well may be. It's just we have no reason to think it's gold. We have no valid evidence to support the conclusion that it's gold. It could be gold, it could be silver, it could be a lot of other different things, and the box could be empty as well. In short, the lack of evidence is not evidence against that something. All options are still on the table.

In the same way, having reached the stage where there is no valid line of evidence for the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It means he could exist and he could not exist. All options are on the table. A critical thinker would't believe something without evidence of a quality proportional to claim. Therefore, he shouldn't believe in God. But the same critical thinker can't make that leap from disbelief to claiming God does not exist.

@spacemonkey:
And even if you show scientifically that prayer doesn't really work, the special pleadings come out immediately. To counter these, you don't use science, you use principles of critical thinking. That's exactly why I try consistently to say critical thinking refutes God, not science.

@Belgarath:
I agree with most of what you said, with one limitation. Science can handle empirical evidence, but how can it handle philosophical arguments, like the ontological argument? That argument is answered using philosophy, not science, which is why I would prefer your first sentence to be revised to "Critical thinkers can ask for the evidence...".

[Cpolsonb]

The best example I know that demonstrate it is the following. There's a box with unknown content. A friend comes a tell us there's gold inside. We ask him, "How do you know?", and he says the owner of the box told him that. We call the owner, and he says he didn't talk with our friend, and hangs up the phone.

Does it mean there is no gold in the box? No. There very well may be. It's just we have no reason to think it's gold. We have no valid evidence to support the conclusion that it's gold. It could be gold, it could be silver, it could be a lot of other different things, and the box could be empty as well. In short, the lack of evidence is not evidence against that something. All options are still on the table.

All options are on the table but there is no evidence to suggest that any one option is more valid than any other. The intellectually honest conclusion is (in my eyes) to act as though there is nothing in the box until shown otherwise. Once someone opens the box and allows me to conduct falsifiable tests to determine it's contents then I'll believe whatever's inside it.

[spiney]

It's likely that this  have been debated here before, but hell, I'm bored, so why not again?

I'm bored too ("too much spare time", ha!), so why not answer again?

Specific claims are - in principle - empirically falsifiable. For example, did Jesus really walk on water? It does seem a bit unlikely!

However, the concept of God is metaphysical, hence cannot be refuted by the method of science.

As an agnostic, whatever I think of the likelihood of any particular religion being "true", I can't escape the feeling of numinous awe from contemplating "the ground of being", something that belongs to all humanity ............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)
 
Numinosity is not necessarily a religious concept:

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/gothic/numinous.html

[seaotter]

Think the box is a weak analogy. Define god and we will look at the science.

[Ido]

Think the box is a weak analogy. Define god and we will look at the science.

The box is meant to show that you don't disprove something by refuting the evidence for it. As for a definition for God, you may be given a lot of different definitions, and you very well find that some definitions contradict scientific knowledge. But in order to fully refute that God you often will have to answer the rationalizations of the believers, which will take the debate out of the realm of science, and into the realm of critical thinking. Not everything is answered using science.

[seaotter]

Who is talking about believers? I'm talking about answering the question. The box is a weak analogy in that we can weigh the box or xray the box. We have weighed and xrayed god claims. They have failed therefore there is evidence there is no god. All possible definitions? Nope, but again define the god and we will examine the scientific evidence.

[spiney]

I don't understand. What physical phenomena would support or deny a metaphysical concept?