Fallacies in Proving God Exists | Episode 901 | Closer To Truth

>I TRY TO HOPE THAT GOD EXISTS, SO WHAT IS THE WORST THING THAT I CAN DO? I CAN TRY TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS WITH PROOFS OF GOD THAT DO NOT WORK. THE MORE I WANT GOD TO EXIST, THE MORE I MUST QUESTION PROOFS OF GOD'S EXISTENCE. BECAUSE I ROOT FOR GOD TO BE REAL, BAD ARGUMENTS FOR GOD SCARE ME. BUT WHO KNOWS, MAYBE ALL THE GOD ARGUMENTS ARE BAD, THAT'S WHY I FEAR FALLACIES. WHAT ARE FALLACIES IN PROVING GOD EXISTS? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY TO FIND OUT. I AM ON A HUNT FOR FALLACIES IN FINDING GOD, SO I BEGIN IN OXFORD, ENGLAND WITH ONE OF THE MOST TRENCHANT ATHEISTS ON EARTH, THE DISTINGUISHED PHYSICAL CHEMIST, PETER ATKINS. IN BATTLING BELIEVERS, PETER TAKES NO PRISONERS. PETER, I HOPE YOU DON'T GET MAD AT ME, BUT FOR MOST OF MY LIFE I HAVE REALLY BEEN INTERESTED IN WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT. DO YOU SEE MANY FALLACIES THAT PEOPLE USE IN ORDER TO PROVE OR DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? >>WELL, THEY MUST ALL BE FALLACIOUS BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOD, THAT IS WHERE YOU CAN DETECT THE FALLACY EASILY ENOUGH. I MEAN, I SUPPOSE A SCIENTIST WOULD THINK OF A FIRST CAUSE AS A VERY POWERFUL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. WHERE DID IT ALL COME FROM, WHO STARTED IT OFF? TERRIBLE DIFFICULT QUESTION, BUT I THINK THAT ANY QUESTION THAT IS GIVEN THE ANSWER, "WELL, GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT." IS AN ABNEGATION OF THE INTELLECT. IT REALLY IS -- IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH IT'S A POSITIVE STATEMENT, BUT IN FACT, IT'S A CAMOUFLAGE OF IGNORANCE. AND SO IT MEANS THE PEOPLE HAVE STOPPED THINKING. AND IF YOU ARE CONFRONTED WITH A QUESTION OF A FIRST CAUSE, WHERE THE UNIVERSE COMES FROM, DON'T JUST SLIP ONTO THE FEATHER BED OF SAYING GOD DID IT, BECAUSE THAT IS MEANINGLESS, TOTALLY, UTTERLY MEANINGLESS. WHAT SCIENTISTS HAVE GOT TO DO IS TO TRACE CAUSES BACK TO THEIR ORIGINS AND FIND A MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNIVERSE. I HOPE THAT THAT WILL PROVE POSSIBLE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE YET THAT IT WILL NOT PROVE POSSIBLE. AND ANYONE, ANY SCIENTIST WHO SAYS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING WITHOUT INTERVENTION, IS NOT BEING A REAL SCIENTIST. IS JUST TOO PESSIMISTIC. >IF WE LOOK BACK HISTORICALLY, WE CERTAINLY SEE SCIENCE MOVING EVER FORWARD AND RELIGION IN TERMS OF THE EXPLANATORY AREAS THAT THEY DEAL WITH, RETREATING. AND PERHAPS RELIGION IS IN SOME CORNER NOW, BUT THEY ARE STAKING OUT A VERY STRONG POSITION , BUT LET'S LOOK AT THE HISTORICAL FLOW AND WE HAVE WHAT IS CALLED "GOD OF THE GAPS" THAT EVERY TIME SOMETHING IS NOT UNDERSTOOD - >>YEAH, IT'S ABNEGATION OF THE INTELLECT. >AND WE HAVE SEEN IT OCCUR IN MANY DIFFERENT STAGES. >>YEAH, EVERY TIME IT OCCURS, IT'S ABNEGATION OF THE INTELLECT. SO TAKE THAT "GOD OF THE GAP", TAKE IT OUT OF YOUR SENTENCE AND SAY, "ABNEGATION OF THE INTELLECT." THAT IS WHAT IT IS. IT IS PEOPLE GIVING UP TRYING TO THINK AND USING A KIND OF A SPELL. YOU HAVE TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B IN AN ARGUMENT. YOU HAVE A GAP. SO YOU WEAVE A SPELL. YOU CAST A SPELL AND YOU ARE THERE. AND YOU CALL IT GOD, YOU DON'T CALL IT A SPELL. I DON'T SEE ANY PART OF THE NATURAL WORLD THAT REQUIRES THE INVOCATION OF THE SPELL WE CALL GOD. > WHY DO THESE ISSUES PROVOKE SUCH EMOTION? >>PEOPLE ARE TERRIFIED, AREN'T THEY? BUT I DON'T THINK PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE FEAR ABOUT WHAT IS BEING DISCOVERED. I MEAN, MAYBE PEOPLE SHOULD BE TERRIFIED OF THE THOUGHT THAT THERE IS NO AFTERLIFE, BUT THEY SHOULD COME TO TERMS WITH IT. AND ENJOY THE PRE-AFTER LIFE. RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THE NON-EXISTENT AFTER LIFE. > SO AS WE LOOK AT PEOPLE WHO PUT FORTH ARGUMENTS FOR GOD, WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE - >>GO TO A PSYCHIATRIST, I THINK. I THINK IT'S DEEPLY INTERESTING THAT YOU HAVE THESE VERY CLEVER PEOPLE, SCIENTISTS, SOME OF THEM EMINENT SCIENTISTS WHO EVEN IN THIS DAY AND AGE, STILL BELIEVE IN GOD AND IT'S QUITE EXTRAORDINARY TO ME THAT SCIENTISTS, WITH THE CURRENT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE POWER OF EXPLANATION AND UNDERSTANDING AND COMPREHENSION THAT SCIENCE PROVIDES, THAT THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT THINK THAT THERE MUST BE THIS SORT OF SUPERNATURAL THING GOING ON. I THINK THEY HAVE TO GO TO PSYCHIATRISTS REALLY. IT MUST BE THEIR UPBRINGING, WHICH HAS GIVEN THEM SOME DEEP INSECURITY AND ESPECIALLY, AS I SEE, NOT ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF IT, EXCEPT SENTIMENT. > TO PETER, ALL ARGUMENTS FOR GOD ARE SPECIOUS AND FRAUDULENT. AND IN DISMISSING THEISTS, HE IS NOT WELL, OVERLY POLITE. I LIKE PETER'S SPIRIT, SMALL 'S' OF COURSE, BUT WHY CAN'T I GO ALL THE WAY WITH HIS SUBSTANCE? IN DEMANDING NATURAL EXPLANATIONS, PETER RIGHTLY HESITATES AT THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. BUT THE ANSWER, HE ASSERTS, IS SURELY NOT GOD. WHAT THEN EXPLAINS ALL THERE IS? I ASK AN ATHEISTIC PHYSICIST WHO HAS MADE IT HIS MISSION TO SHOW THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. VICTOR STENGER SAYS THAT QUANTUM PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY DEMONSTRATE GOD'S ABSENCE. HOW SO? VIC, YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST AND HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING MANY SCIENTISTS, CERTAINLY PHILOSOPHERS, THEOLOGIANS, BELIEVE GOD DOES EXIST. WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF ARGUMENTS THAT THEY USE TO SHOW GOD EXISTS THAT YOU THINK ARE FALLACIES? >> THE CLASSIC ARGUMENTS GO BACK TO THOMAS AQUINAS AND HIS FIVE DIFFERENT PROOFS AND THEY ALL BASICALLY AMOUNTED TO THE SAME THING, THAT YOU NEEDED SOMEBODY TO START THE UNIVERSE GOING, YOU NEEDED TO CAUSE THE FIRST MOVER AND SO ON. IN MODERN TERMS, THIS IS STATED AS THE COLUM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, IT COMES FROM ISLAMIC SOURCES, BUT IT'S BEEN MODERNIZED. AND IT GOES SOMETHING LIKE THIS: NUMBER ONE, EVERYTHING THAT BEGINS HAS A CAUSE, NUMBER TWO, THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING, SO NUMBER THREE, THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CAUSE AND AS THOMAS AQUINAS ALWAYS SAID, AND THAT'S WHAT WE KNOW AS GOD. WELL, LET'S LOOK AT EACH OF THOSE. FIRST OF ALL IS THE ARGUMENT THAT EVERYTHING THAT BEGINS HAS A CAUSE. THAT IS IN FACT NOT TRUE. WE CAN THINK OF MANY EXAMPLES IN MODERN PHYSICS WHERE EVENTS OCCUR IN AN UNCAUSED WAY, AN UNPREDETERMINED WAY. ONE EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE EXCITED ATOM WHERE THE ELECTRON IS IN THE HIGHER ENERGY LEVEL, IT DROPS DOWN TO A LOWER ENERGY LEVEL AND THERE IS NOTHING IN PHYSICS THAT TELLS US WHEN THE PARTICULAR TRANSITION WILL HAPPEN. THEREFORE, THE FIRST AXIOM OF THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT HAS TO FAIL. IT FAILS THE SECOND HYPOTHESIS AS WELL. THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING. NOW THE ARGUMENT IS USUALLY GIVEN THAT THE BIG BANG SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE HAS A BEGINNING. WHEN IN FACT ALL IT SHOWS IS THAT THE UNIVERSE THAT WE HAVE NOW, EXPLODED FROM SOME TINY POCKET 13.7 BILLION YEARS AGO, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WASN'T ANYTHING BEFORE THAT, IN FACT THERE ARE THEORIES, MODELS, THAT PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR THE UNIVERSE HAVING TUNNELED THROUGH FROM A PREVIOUS UNIVERSE. >WHAT ARE SOME OTHERS? DESIGN ARGUMENT. >>OKAY, LET'S JUST LOOK AT THE WORLD AROUND US, HOW COULD ALL OF THIS HAVE HAPPENED BY ACCIDENT, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN IT, THEREFORE IT MUST HAVE SOME SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN. WELL, THAT IS BASICALLY AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE AND IT TURNS OUT THAT WHEN YOU LOOK VERY CLOSELY AT IT, IT NOT ONLY DOESN'T LOOK DESIGNED, IT LOOKS JUST LIKE IT SHOULD LOOK IF IT WASN'T DESIGNED. YOU FIND THAT THE DATA THAT WE TAKE IN COSMOLOGY FIT VERY WELL TO A PURELY NATURALISTIC PICTURE. SO THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE UNIVERSE CAN'T BE SELF-SUSTAINABLE. SELF-ORGANIZING. AND BESIDES, IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN WHO CREATED GOD? GOD HAS REALLY NO EXPLANATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE, IT JUST PUTS BACK THE EXPLANATION ONE LAYER. >AT ITS' ULTIMATE, YOU HAVE TO COME IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO SOMETHING THAT IS DEFINED AS SELF-EXISTING, WHICH IS THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF GOD. >>RIGHT, I MEAN IF GOD -- BUT YOU SEE THE LOGIC OF IT. ONCE YOU ACCEPT THE FACT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT CREATED, THEN THAT SOMETHING COULD BE THE UNIVERSE. >YEAH, PICK WHAT YOU WANT, BUT YOU GOTTA PICK SOMETHING. >>AND THE SIMPLEST THING TO DO IS PICK THE UNIVERSE. >NO FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT FOR GOD, NO DESIGN ARGUMENT, BUT WHY THE LAWS OF QUANTUM PHYSICS, VIC? WHERE DID THE LAWS COME FROM? THERE IS ALWAYS RESIDUAL, ALWAYS SOMETHING UNEXPLAINED AND SUPPOSEDLY UNEXPLAINABLE. BUT LACK OF EXPLANATION DOES NOT JUSTIFY FALLACIES, FALLACIES ARE JUST SLOPPY THINKING. ARGUMENTS FOR GOD CAN BE COMPLEX, SO OFTEN ONLY A PHILOSOPHER CAN FOLLOW IT'S TORTUROUS TRAILS OF SEMANTICS AND RHETORIC. I MEET A THEISTIC PHILOSOPHER, MICHAEL TOOLEY. MICHAEL, LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE SECRET, I WOULD LOVE TO BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD FOR A WHOLE HOST OF REASONS. BUT EVERY TIME I HEAR THE ARGUMENTS OF THEISTS, I MAY BELIEVE IN THEIR CONCLUSION, BUT I'M DISCOURAGED BY THEIR ARGUMENTS. AS A PHILOSOPHER, HOW DO YOU LOOK UPON SOME OF THE METHODOLOGIES THAT THEISTS USE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? >>ONE THING THAT HAPPENS QUITE FREQUENTLY IS THAT SOMETHING IS PUT FORWARD AS AN ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, BUT IT'S REALLY -- IF IT'S A PROOF, A PROOF OF SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE ARGUMENT FOR A FIRST CAUSE, ARGUMENTS FOR AN ON MOVE MOVER. ARGUMENTS FOR A BEING THAT IS NECESSARY AND HAS THE NECESSITY OF ITSELF, OKAY, RIGHT? IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE ARGUMENTS, RIGHT, SOME OF THOSE DON'T EVEN GIVE YOU A REASON FOR BELIEVING IN A PERSONAL SORT OF BEING, RIGHT? I MEAN, THE FIRST CAUSE CAN BE SOMETHING PURELY PHYSICAL, RIGHT? SO YOU DON'T EVEN GET AN ARGUMENT FOR A PERSONAL GOD, LET ALONE A GOD FOR EXAMPLE THAT IS OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT AND LET ALONE AN ARGUMENT FOR A GOD WHO IS GOOD OR PERFECTLY GOOD, RIGHT? SO SOME ARGUMENTS ARE FALLACIOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T BEAR UPON SIMPLE CRUCIAL PROPERTIES OF GOD, LIKE BEING A PERSONAL GOD OR BEING MORALLY PERFECT. OTHER PROBLEMS ARISE IN ARGUMENTS THAT APPEAL TO PERSONAL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES, RIGHT? AND SO A CHRISTIAN MAY APPEAL TO HIS OR HER PERSONAL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES FOR BELIEVING THAT GOD EXISTS OR THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD AND SO ON. AND WHAT IS OVERLOOKED HERE IS THAT PEOPLE IN OTHER RELIGIONS HAVE EXPERIENCES THAT ARE REALLY QUITE COMPARABLE AND IT LEADS TO CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS, RIGHT? AND SO A PERSON AS A MUSLIM HAS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES THAT LEAVE HIM OR HER TO BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH, DEFINED AS A PURELY MONOTHEISTIC NON-TRINITARIAN GOD, RIGHT? PEOPLE IN EASTERN RELIGIONS HAVE EXPERIENCES THAT ARE COMPATABLE WITH POLY-THEISM ETC, AND SO TYPICALLY PEOPLE FOCUS UPON THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES AND DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AT ALL THE FACT THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES, LEADING TO CONCLUSIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ONES THEY ARE TRYING TO DRAW. >ONE CAN ARGUE THOUGH THAT THERE IS A COMMONALITY BETWEEN ALL OF THESE VIEWS THAT IS SOMETHING SO INTRINSIC TO HUMAN NATURE, THAT SENSES THAT THERE IS SOMETHING TRANSCENDENT, SOMETHING OF A NON-PHYSICAL CHARACTER. >>WELL, THAT IS AN INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT RESPONSE, YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT THIS IS A CORE THAT IS THE SAME BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES AND IT IS TO SPEAK THE LEAST OF VALID CONCLUSIONS, RIGHT? BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARTS THAT DISAGREE, WHAT YOU FIND IS THAT THEY ARE HEAVILY DEPENDENT UPON A CULTURE IN WHICH ONE IS RAISED, RIGHT? IF YOU ARE RAISED IN INDIA, THE PROBABILITY YOU HAVE ENVISIONED THE VIRGIN MARY, WOULD NOT BE VERY HIGH. WHEREAS IF YOU ARE RAISED IN SPAIN, IT MIGHT BE MUCH HIGHER. SO WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT A PERSON'S CULTURE, THE FAMILY IN WHICH HE OR SHE WAS RAISED, HAS A REAL IMPACT UPON THE CONTENT OF THE EXPERIENCE, RIGHT? AND THE QUESTION IS, WHETHER GIVEN THAT IS SO, IT'S REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT NONE THE LESS, THERE IS A CORE THAT IS RELIABLE. > IS IT ODD THAT WHILE I WANT TO BELIEVE IN GOD, I ALWAYS WANT TO EXPOSE THESE FALLACIES? NO, I AM OFFENDED WHEN BELIEVERS SPOUT OFF SO-CALLED PROOFS OF GOD THAT ARE PATENTLY ABSURD. FALLACIES ARE MY ENEMY, THEY UNDERMINE BELIEF LIKE EVIL DEMONS, THAT'S WHY I HATE THESE FALLACIES, I WANT TO FIND THEM AND I WANT TO KILL THEM. SO I SEARCH FOR MORE. I MEET DUKE PHILOSOPHER, WALTER SENNOTT ARMSTRONG, A FONT OF ANTI-GOD FALLACIES. WALTER, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, RIGHT? >>NOT ONLY DO I NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, I BELIEVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST. >OKAY GOOD. YOU HAVE SPENT PART OF YOUR CAREER, A SMALL PART, BUT A PART, LOOKING AT THE ARGUMENTS OF SOME PRETTY SMART PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, RIGHT? >>YES. >WHAT ARE SOME OF THE FALLACIES THAT YOU SEE IN THOSE ARGUMENTS? >>WELL, ONE EXAMPLE IS WHAT I CALL THE FALLACY OF BLOATED CONCLUSIONS. YOU GET SOME PREMISES THAT WILL YIELD ONE CONCLUSION, WHICH IS A PRETTY WEAK CONCLUSION AND THEN YOU BLOAT IT UP SO THAT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE REALLY PROVEN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. AND ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS WOULD BE AQUINAS'S COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. HE ARGUES THAT SOMETHING MUST HAVE CREATED THE UNIVERSE. THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A FIRST CAUSE. OKAY? HE SAYS, THEREFORE, GOD EXISTS. WELL, IT DOESN'T FOLLOW ANYTHING LIKE THE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN GOD EXISTS, SOMETHING COULD HAVE CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND DIED THE NEXT DAY, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT STILL EXISTS. YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S GOOD, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S ETERNAL, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S A PERSON. ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. WHEN PEOPLE HAVE A RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, THAT LEADS THEM TO BELIEVE IN GOD. BUT HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT THE THING THEY EXPERIENCE IS ALL POWERFUL OR ALL GOOD OR ALL KNOWING? OR GOOD AT ALL FOR THAT MATTER? AND SO THEY BLOAT THE CONCLUSION UP, USUALLY IN LINE WITH THE RELIGIOUS TRADITION THAT THEY ARE FAMILIAR WITH. >OKAY, ANOTHER FALLACY. >>EXCESSIVE FOOTNOTES. I LOVE THE FALLACY OF EXCESSIVE FOOTNOTES AND THAT IS SIMPLY THAT SOME PEOPLE, WHEN THEY GIVE THESE ARGUMENTS, THEY CITE AUTHORITY AFTER AUTHORITY AFTER AUTHORITY. THEY WANT TO SAY, WELL, YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN THE BIG BANG AND ONCE YOU BELIEVE IN THE BIG BANG, THEN SOMETHING HAD TO CAUSE THE BIG BANG AND THAT MUST HAVE BEEN GOD. AND SO THEY CITE AUTHORITY AFTER AUTHORITY ABOUT THE BIG BANG AND THEY SHOW THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS AND CITE THE LAWS. ANOTHER FAVORITE IS TO CITE AS AN AUTHORITY, THE ATHEISTS THEMSELVES. A THEIST WILL CITE AN ATHEIST AS AN AUTHORITY FOR WHAT THE THEIST WANTS TO SAY AND LIKE, AH, GOTCHA! YOU KNOW, BUT I DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING ALL ATHEISTS SAY, I MEAN, THERE IS LOTS OF ATHEISTS WHO SAY STUPID THINGS. >OTHER ARGUMENTS. >ANOTHER ARGUMENT IS FALSE DICHOTOMY. PEOPLE WILL SADDLE THE ATHEIST WITH, "WELL, YOU MUST BELIEVE EITHER THIS OR THIS, BUT THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT, SO WE MUST BE RIGHT." SO THEY WILL SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY WILL SAY, THE UNIVERSE MUST HAVE BEGUN EITHER BY CHANCE OR THROUGH LAW OR THROUGH A DESIGNER. AND SO, AS AN ATHEISTS I GO, WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE TO PICK, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY MEAN BY IT. >>AND THEN THEY DICHOTOMY WOULD BE, THE LAW CHANCE ON ONE SIDE AND THE PERSONAL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN GOD ON THE OTHER. AND THAT INDEED IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY BECAUSE THERE ARE INNUMERABLE EXPLANATIONS THAT ARE NOT EITHER ONE OF THOSE. FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW, YOU HAVE NOT EXHAUSTED THE UNIVERSE OF POSSIBILITIES AT ALL BY SETTING UP THAT DICHOTOMY. >>EXACTLY. SO ANOTHER FALLACY IS EQUIVOCATION. VERY OFTEN A TERM WILL BE USED IN DIFFERENT WAYS IN THE COURSE OF THE SAME ARGUMENT AND YOU CAN MAKE ONE STEP WHEN IT MEANS ONE THING BUT THEN YOU CAN'T MAKE THE LATER STEP. FOR UNIVERSE FOR EXAMPLE, SOMETIMES MEANS JUST THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE AS WE EXPERIENCE IT AND WHAT WE LIVE IN, SOMETIMES IT INCLUDES GOD, SOMETIMES IT INCLUDES WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG, THAT TERM GETS THROWN AROUND AND USED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS AND THAT CREATES PROBLEMS IN A LOT OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT USE THAT CONCEPT. >HOW ABOUT ANOTHER FALLACY? >>WELL, ANOTHER VERY COMMON FALLACY IS THE "STRAW MAN FALLACY". ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT IS WHEN THEISTS SAY THAT ATHEISTS MUST BELIEVE THAT NOTHING IS REALLY MORALLY RIGHT OR WRONG, THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY, WELL ATHEISM DOESN'T IMPLY ANYTHING OF THE SORT. SO YOU ARE GONNA BE ABLE TO MAKE FUN OF ATHEISTS AND GET PEOPLE TO TURN AGAINST ATHEISTS BY ASCRIBING TO ATHEISTS THE POSITION THAT THEY DON'T HOLD. >WITH ALL OF THESE FALLACIES, SOME OF THEM EMERGING FROM WHAT WE WOULD BOTH CONSIDER VERY SMART PEOPLE, PHILOSOPHERS, WHY DO YOU THINK THESE OCCUR? >>SO WHEN THEY REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE SOMETHING, PEOPLE START DECIDING ON THE CONCLUSION FIRST AND CONSTRUCTING THE ARGUMENTS LATER, THAT IS WHEN YOU TYPICALLY GET FALLACIES. >WALTER RELISHES FALLACIES, HE LOVES EXPOSING BAD ARGUMENTS FOR GOD, REVELING OBVIOUS BLUNDERS OR HIDDEN INCONSISTENCIES. TO ME, THESE BAD ARGUMENTS ARE NOT STRANGERS. I HAVE MET THEM ALL ON THE FRONT LINES OF THE SCIENCE/ RELIGION BATTLE. FOR BELIEVERS, THEY ARE PITFALLS AND STUMBLING BLOCKS. BY TWISTING LOGIC TO TRY TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS, BAD ARGUMENTS SUCK THEIR GULLIBLE PROPONENTS DOWN THE SINKHOLE OF EMBARRASSING ERROR. SO WHY IS IT, AFTER UNCOVERING THE FALLACIES OF PROVING GOD AND DISCARDING THEM ALL AS IMPOTENT FRAUDS, THAT I AM STILL NOT WILLING TO DISCARD GOD? WHY DOES MY HOPE SURVIVE? I BRING THE FALLACY QUESTION TO A SCIENTIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD. I GO TO CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, TO MEET THE DIRECTOR OF THE FARADAY INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION, DENNIS ALEXANDER. >>I THINK "GOD THE GAPS" SORT OF IDEAS ARE VERY, VERY COMMON, YOU KNOW, IN THE HISTORY OF APOLOGETICS, OUR BELIEVE IS TRYING TO JUSTIFY THEIR BELIEFS AND USUALLY WHAT OFTEN THEY DO IS TO POINT TO SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T YET IN SCIENCE UNDERSTAND VERY WELL LIKE THE ORIGIN OF LIFE OR THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM, YOU KNOW, HOW EXACTLY IT CAME TO BEING. OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW AND THEN THEY SAY, AH HA! HERE IS A GAP IN THE SCIENTIFIC STORY, SO GOD DID IT. AND THEY BRING GOD IN TO JUST SORT OF EXPLAIN THIS KIND OF CURRENT GAPS AND IGNORANCE THAT WE HAVE AT THE MOMENT AND OF COURSE WHAT HAPPENS OBVIOUSLY IS THAT THOSE GAPS CLOSE, THE SCIENTIFIC STORY GETS BETTER AND THAT GOD SORT OF SHRINKS AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE HAVE USED BRAIN SCIENCE AND THINGS, AH WELL, THE MIND IS SOMETHING WE CAN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND, IN SOME WAY GOD IS LOCATED IN THE MIND IN THE WAY THAT IS A BIT SPOOKY AND MYSTERIOUS AND NOW OF COURSE NEUROSCIENCE HAS BEGUN TO UNDERSTAND THE BRAIN IN A MUCH MORE THOROUGH WAY, ALTHOUGH VERY MUCH INCOMPLETE WAY, BUT I THINK IT'S VERY DANGEROUS, YOU KNOW, TO PUT A SORT OF GAP THERE IN THE MIND AS IF THAT IS A SPECIAL LOCATION OF GOD. SO I THINK THE 'GOD OF GAPS' ARGUMENT IS VERY EXPELLERS, HAS BEEN VERY, VERY KIND OF MISUSED OVER THE YEARS. >IF WE LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF RELIGION AND SCIENCE, WE SEE SCIENCE GRADUALLY PAINTING RELIGION INTO A TIGHTER AND TIGHTER CORNER. >>WELL, I THINK RELIGION NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE SORT OF PHILOSOPHY OF THE EARLY FOUNDERS OF THE SOCIETY IN THE MID 17TH CENTURY. I MEAN, THESE WERE PEOPLE WITH DEEP RELIGIOUS FAITH AND THEY SAW IT ALMOST AS THEIR MISSION TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND THIS AMAZING WORLD THAT GOD HAD BROUGHT INTO BEING. AND SO THEY SAW ALL THEIR ACTIVITIES AS UNCOVERING THE ONES OF CREATION, UNCOVERING WHAT GOD HAD DONE AND ACTUALLY SAW HIS PART OF THEIR WORSHIP AND I THINK ITS IMPORTANT FOR RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TO RECAPTURE THAT SENSE OF WHEN THEY DO THEIR SCIENCE AS PART OF THEIR WORSHIP, I MEAN, WHEN I GO TO MY LAB I DON'T USE GOD LANGUAGE IN THE LAB TO UNDERSTAND IMMUNOLOGY OR THE BRAIN OR WHATEVER IT IS, BUT I AM AMAZED BY WHAT I DISCOVER AND I SEE THAT AS PART OF MY WORSHIP. I THINK UNCOVERING WHAT GOD HAS DONE IN THE CREATED ORDER, IS A DUTY THAT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE HAVE AND SHOULD BE SEEN AS PART OF THEIR RELIGION ACTIVITY. SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD WE SHOULD THINK OF SCIENCE AS IT WERE IN ROOTING UPON THE DOMAIN OF RELIGION, BUT RATHER SCIENCE EXPANDING, UNDERSTANDING A CONCEPT OF WHO GOD IS. >LET'S TAKE ANOTHER EXAMPLE AND THAT IS THE PROLIFERATION OF WHAT WE SEE OFTEN IN THE MEDIA OF WHAT SEEMS TO BE CHEAP TREKS PURPORTING TO BE MIRACLES, THAT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. >>I HAVE TO SAY I'M PRETTY SKEPTICAL, MY GENERAL DEFAULT POSITION IS DON'T BELIEVE IT. I GUESS THAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC TRAINING ISN'T IT, AND SO CERTAINLY I WOULD COMMONGRATE SKEPTICISM TO ALL OF THESE SORT OF MIRACULOUS CURES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. AND SO I THINK THEY WOULD BE DANGEROUS THINGS TO TRY AND USE PROBABLY AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR BELIEF. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I PERSONALLY, AS A BELIEVER, I WOULDN'T WANT TO EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT GOD OCCASIONALLY CHOOSES TO DO SOMETHING SPECIAL. BUT I THINK TO ASSIGN LOTS OF THESE SORT OF FAKE KIND OF MIRACLES, TO GOD, IT DOESN'T DO HIM ANY FAVORS. IT DOESN'T HONOR GOD IN THAT WAY TO SAY SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED WHEN REALLY IT'S A DELUSION. >GOD MAY EXIST, BUT NO ARGUMENT WILL EVER PROVE IT. I CANNOT IMAGINE ANY SEQUENCE OF WORDS OR EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES THAT COULD PROVE WITHOUT DOUBT THAT GOD EXISTS OR DOES NOT EXIST. THERE COULD ALWAYS BE ANOTHER EXPLANATION. WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, CUMULATIVE CASES, INFERENCES TO THE BEST EXPLANATION? PERHAPS THESE CAN WORK FOR OR AGAINST GOD, BUT NEVER CONCLUSIVELY. I DO NOT TOLERATE FALLACIOUS PROOFS OF GOD. SO MUCH SO, THAT I MAKE A BOLD COMPARISON. GOD, IF THERE IS A GOD, WOULD BE OFFENDED MORE BY A PREACHER IN A PULPIT EXPOUNDING A BAD PROOF OF GOD, THEN BY A SOLDIER IN A WAR TAKING GOD'S NAME IN VAIN. I'D LIKE GOD TO EXIST, ANYONE WHO KNOWS ME, KNOWS THIS. BUT I FEAR BELIEVING IN GOD BASED ON REASONS THAT ARE WRONG. SO -- IF GOD EXISTS AND IF GOD WANTS ME TO BELIEVE IN GOD, IT'S UP TO GOD TO FIGURE OUT HOW. I'M SORRY, BUT THAT IS CLOSER TO TRUTH.

Info

Channel: Closer To Truth

Views: 82,044

Rating: 4.7264466 out of 5

Keywords: closer to truth, robert lawrence kuhn, Peter Atkins, Victor Stenger, Michael Tooley, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Denis Alexander, Proving God Exists, Fallacies in Proving God Exists, God Exists, God, Does God exist, arguments for God, God Arguments, theology, atheism, atheist, religion, closer to truth full episodes, philosophy of religion

Id: lpkYIk1qqaE

Channel Id: undefined

Length: 26min 46sec (1606 seconds)

Published: Mon Aug 10 2020