Careful of Deistic Proofs
07/01/11 18:43 Filed in: Human Nature
A recent Colbert Report episode demonstrated why is so difficult for religious, even - or maybe especially - the pope, to talk about science. I found it amusing, as I am sure you will too, to watch Bill O’Reilly argue that he could not explain how tides come in and go out or how the sun “comes up and goes down.” As Colbert elegantly says, O’Reilly knows God exists because he can’t explain things.
If we Christians insist on trying to use God to explain the mechanical workings of things we will lose the debate and we will misunderstand God, ourselves, and nature. God is the cause of nature, but that does not make Him the efficient cause of everything in nature, except in the way I explained in a previous post on the big bang.
I also want to point out that proofs for God’s existence are generally inductive. The only deductive argument I know of is the Ontological Argument in its various formulations. As Thomas says, however, we cannot grasp the idea of God, so the Ontological Argument does not work for us. The proofs Thomas gives us are all inductive: which means that they lead to the conclusion that God exists but they do not demonstrate the way mathematics proofs demonstrate a conclusion. Inductive arguments are never definitive.
This point proves important if you are familiar with Dawkins’ The God Delusion. In there, Dawkins recounts Thomas’ proofs and says that Thomas asserted he proved God’s existence deductively, then Dawkins goes on to how that they are inductive arguments that prove nothing. First, as I’ve already said, Thomas admits that they are inductive arguments. Second, inductive arguments to prove conclusions. If they did not, we would know no science and we would never be able to convict someone of a crime.
In short, proof does not come in one flavor, and philosophers, theologians, and news pundits should be more careful when they argue for God’s existence or for anything else.
If we Christians insist on trying to use God to explain the mechanical workings of things we will lose the debate and we will misunderstand God, ourselves, and nature. God is the cause of nature, but that does not make Him the efficient cause of everything in nature, except in the way I explained in a previous post on the big bang.
I also want to point out that proofs for God’s existence are generally inductive. The only deductive argument I know of is the Ontological Argument in its various formulations. As Thomas says, however, we cannot grasp the idea of God, so the Ontological Argument does not work for us. The proofs Thomas gives us are all inductive: which means that they lead to the conclusion that God exists but they do not demonstrate the way mathematics proofs demonstrate a conclusion. Inductive arguments are never definitive.
This point proves important if you are familiar with Dawkins’ The God Delusion. In there, Dawkins recounts Thomas’ proofs and says that Thomas asserted he proved God’s existence deductively, then Dawkins goes on to how that they are inductive arguments that prove nothing. First, as I’ve already said, Thomas admits that they are inductive arguments. Second, inductive arguments to prove conclusions. If they did not, we would know no science and we would never be able to convict someone of a crime.
In short, proof does not come in one flavor, and philosophers, theologians, and news pundits should be more careful when they argue for God’s existence or for anything else.
blog comments powered by Disqus