God: The Failed Hypothesis (2 page)

True that science generally makes the assumption called
methodological naturalism,
which refers to the self-imposed convention that limits inquiry to objective observations of the world and generally (but, as we will see, not necessarily) seeks natural accounts of all phenomena. This is often confused with
metaphysical naturalism,
which assumes that reality itself is purely natural, that is, composed solely of material objects. While it cannot be denied that most physical scientists, at least, think this is the case, they cannot prove it. Furthermore, they have no need to try since ultimately it is not a scientific question amenable to empirical adjudication. If it were, it would be physics and not metaphysics.

In this book I will show that certain natural, material phenomena are implied by the God hypothesis. The observation of any of these phenomena would defy all reasonable natural, material descriptions.

Despite philosophical and historical literature in the past century that described the history of science as a series of revolutions and “paradigm shifts
⁹
,” the fundamental notion of matter and material processes has not been changed since the time of Newton—only embellished
¹⁰
. Anything that can be shown to violate those principles, to have properties different from those long associated with matter, would be of such world-shaking significance that, for want of a better term, we could call them supernatural.

As far as we can tell from current scientific knowledge, the universe we observe with our senses and scientific instruments can be described in terms of matter and material processes alone.

Certainly scientists will initially search for a material account of any new phenomenon since parsimony of thought requires that we seek the simplest models first, those that make the fewest new, untried hypotheses. However, should all material explanations fail, there is nothing stopping the empirical testing of hypotheses that go beyond those of conventional physical science.

Gaps for God?

Well aware that the existence of God is not proved from the incompleteness of science alone, some theologians and theistic scientists are now claiming that they have uncovered gaps in scientific theories that can only be filled by a supreme being operating outside the natural realm. They boldly assert that science cannot account for certain phenomena and, furthermore, never will. The new “proofs” are based on claims that the complexity of life cannot be reduced, and never will be reduced, to purely natural (material) processes. They also assert that the constants and laws of physics are so fine-tuned that they cannot have come about naturally, and that the origin of the physical universe and the laws it obeys cannot have “come from nothing” without supernatural intervention. Believers also cite results from purported carefully controlled experiments that they say provide empirical evidence for a world beyond matter that cannot be accounted for by material processes alone.

In order to estimate effectively the credibility of these claims, we must be careful to properly locate the burden of proof. That burden rests on the shoulders of those who assert that science will never be able to account naturally for some phenomenon, that is, describe the phenomenon with a model containing only material elements and processes. If a plausible scientific model consistent with all existing knowledge can be found, then the claim fails. That model need not be proven to be correct, just not proven to be incorrect.

If we can find plausible ways in which all the existing gaps in scientific knowledge one day may be filled, then the scientific arguments for the existence of God fail. We could then conclude that God need not be included in the models we build to describe phenomena currently observable to humans. Of course, this leaves open the possibility that a god exists that is needed to account for phenomena outside the realm of current human observation. He might show up in some future space expedition, or in some experiment at a giant particle accelerator. However, that god would not be a god who plays an important role in human life. It is not God.

Examining the Evidence Against God

Evaluating the arguments that science has uncovered evidence for God is only part of my task, which was largely completed in
Has Science Found God?
My primary concern here will be to evaluate the less familiar arguments in which science provides evidence
against
the existence of God.

The process I will follow is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The existence of a God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us. Various models will be assumed in which God has specific attributes that can be tested empirically. That is, if a God with such attributes exists, certain phenomena should be observable. Any failure to pass a specific test will be regarded as a failure of that particular model. Furthermore, if the actual observations are as expected in the absence of the specified deity, then this can be taken as an additional mark against his existence.

Where a failure occurs, the argument may be made that a hidden God still may exist. While this is a logically correct statement, history and common experience provide many examples where, ultimately, absence of evidence became evidence of absence. Generally speaking, when we have no evidence or other reason for believing in some entity, then we can be pretty sure that entity does not exist
¹¹
. We have no evidence for Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, and the Loch Ness Monster, so we do not believe they exist. If we have no evidence or other reason for believing in God, then we can be pretty sure that God does not exist.

Notes

¹
As quoted in J. Tinsley Oden, acceptance remarks, 1993 John von Neumann Award Winner,
United States Association of Computational Mechanics Bulletin
6, no. 3 (September 1993). Online at “http://www.usacm.org/Oden’s_acceptance_remarks.htm”:http://www.usacm.org/Oden’s_acceptance_remarks.htm (accessed February 22, 2005).

²
Stephen J. Gould,
Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life
(New York: Ballantine, 1999).

³
Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, “Leading Scientists Still Reject God,”
Nature
394 (1998): 313.

⁴
Marcus Tullius Cicero,
De Natura Deorum
or
On the Nature of the Gods,
ed. and trans. H. Rackham (New York: Loeb Classical Library, 1933).

⁵
William Paley,
Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearance of Nature
(London: Halliwell, 1802).

⁶
Sharon Begley, “Science Finds God,”
Newsweek,
July 20, 1998.

⁷
Victor J. Stenger,
Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003). See references therein for the original claims.

⁸
Victor J. Stenger,
The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of
Physics Come From?
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2006). Contains a complete discussion of the nature of matter and other physical entities.

⁹
Thomas Kuhn,
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).

¹⁰
Steven Weinberg, “The Revolution That Didn’t Happen,”
New York Review of Books,
October 8, 1998.

¹¹
Keith Parsons,
God and the Burden of Proof: Platinga, Swinburne, and the Analytical Defense of Theism
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989).

All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of
any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability.

—David Hume

Lack of Evidence

M
any theologians and theistic scientists claim that evidence has been found for the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God or, at least, some being with supernatural powers. However, they cannot deny that their evidence is not sufficiently convincing to satisfy the majority of scientists. Indeed, as we saw in the preface, the overwhelming majority of prominent American scientists has concluded that God does not exist. If God exists, where is he? Philosopher Theodore Drange has termed this the
lack-of-evidence argument,
which he states formally as follows:

1. Probably, if God were to exist, then there would be good objective evidence for his existence.

2. But there is no good objective evidence for his existence.

3. Therefore, probably God does not exist.

Drange criticizes premise 1 of the lack-of-evidence argument, pointing out that God could simply choose not to use the channel of objective evidence but directly implant that knowledge in human minds
¹
. However, as he and others have pointed out, such a deity would not be a perfectly loving God and the very existence of nonbelievers in the world who have not resisted such belief is evidence against his existence
²
. The
problem of divine hiddenness
is one that has taxed the abilities of theologians over the years—almost as much as the
problem of evil,
which questions how an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God can allow so much unnecessary suffering among the planet’s humans and animals. We will return to each of these problems.

However, independent of the unknowable intentions of a hypothetical being of infinite power and wisdom, objective evidence for an entity with godlike attributes should be readily available. After all, God is supposed to play a decisive role in every happening in the world. Surely we should see some sign of that in objective observations made by our eyes and ears, and especially by our most sensitive scientific instruments. The founders and leaders of major religions have always claimed that God can be seen in the world around us. In Romans 1:20, St. Paul says: “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” We will look for evidence of God in the things that have been made.

The Nature of Scientific Evidence

Before examining specific data, let us consider what constitutes “scientific evidence.” Here I will limit myself to the kind of evidence that is needed to establish the validity of an extraordinary claim that goes beyond existing knowledge. Clearly the standard for this must be set much higher than that for an ordinary claim.

For example, an ordinary claim might be that an 81-milligram aspirin taken daily will reduce the chance of heart attacks and strokes. Such a claim is ordinary, because we have a plausible mechanism for such an effect in the resulting slight thinning of the blood.

By contrast, an extraordinary claim might be that such a therapy would cure
AIDS
. Lacking any plausible mechanism, we would have to demand far more confirmatory data than in the first case.

We often hear of stories citing examples of dreams that came true. This would seem to suggest a power of the mind that goes beyond known physical capabilities. However, in this case, a strong selection process is taking place whereby all the millions of dreams that do not come true are simply ignored. Unless otherwise demonstrated, a plausible explanation that must first be ruled out is that the reported dream came true by chance selection out of many that had no such dramatic outcome.

How can we rule out chance or other artifacts? This is what the scientific method is all about. We might do a controlled experiment with hundreds of subjects recording their dreams upon awaking every morning. Independent investigators, with no stake in the outcome one way or another, would then perform a careful statistical analysis of the data. It would help if the dream outcomes were something simple and quantitative, like the winning number for a future lottery. Then the results could be compared with the easily calculated expectations from chance.

Allow me to list a few of the rules that the scientific community conventionally applies when evaluating any extraordinary claim. This is not complete by any means; nowhere can we find a document that officially lays down the scientific method to the complete satisfaction of a consensus of scientists and philosophers. However, five conditions suffice for our evaluation of claims of empirical evidence for extraordinary empirical claims in science:

Conditions for Considering Extraordinary Claims

1. The protocols of the study must be clear and impeccable so that all possibilities of error can be evaluated. The investigators, not the reviewers, carry the burden of identifying each possible source of error, explaining how it was minimized, and providing a quantitative estimate of the effect of each error. These errors can be systematic—attributable to biases in the experimental set up—or statistical—the result of chance fluctuations. No new effect can be claimed unless all the errors are small enough to make it highly unlikely that they are the source of the claimed effect.

2. The hypotheses being tested must be established clearly and explicitly before data taking begins, and not changed midway through the process or after looking at the data. In particular, “data mining” in which hypotheses are later changed to agree with some interesting but unanticipated results showing up in the data is unacceptable. This may be likened to painting a bull’s-eye around wherever an arrow has struck. That is not to say that certain kinds of exploratory observations, in astronomy, for example, may not be examined for anomalous phenomena. But they are not used in hypothesis testing. They may lead to new hypotheses, but these hypotheses must then be independ- ently tested according to the protocols I have outlined.