In several posts, I have pointed out that it is impossible for science to prove that God exists, just as it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. The reason is that the object of scientific inquiry is the material world, and God is not part of that world and is therefore beyond the reach of science.
In a
previous post, I criticized a book that attempted to do the former, from
the perspective of believers. In this post, I will criticize another book that
attempts to do the latter, from the atheist perspective. It is M-E: The God
Within, by Joseph R.
Abrahamson.
Although the author claims to rely on the principles of logic and the scientific method, he makes significant errors that indicate his lack of in-depth knowledge of these disciplines. The argument he presents as proof that God does not exist, although not explicitly stated in the book, can be deduced from reading it and can be summarized as follows:
1.
There
is nothing but this universe, where there is nothing but matter and energy (postulate).
2.
If
God exists, He must be part of the universe (deduced from 1).
3.
Quantum
mechanics introduces inherent uncertainties.
4.
There
are no absolute truths (deduced
from 3!).
5.
God
is Absolute Truth (definition).
6.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist (deduced from 2, 4, and 5).
7.
Corollary: Anyone who has read this book and disagrees with
the conclusion does not understand logic and does not use reason [pages 95-97].
The ad
hominem corollary
is surprising. The author forgets that, for the conclusion of a chain of
logical deductions to be true, two conditions are necessary:
1. The conclusion must follow from the premises.
2. The premises must be true.
The first premise is a postulate; it is not proven.
Denying it destroys the entire argument. In fact, Abrahamson isn't entirely
clear about the laws of logic. Speaking about the scientific method, he says: In science,
only objective facts and the logical conclusions that flow from them are
acceptable [page 2].
But logical conclusions flow not just from facts but also from axioms and
postulates that are taken for granted without demonstration. Facts often serve
as ex
post facto proof of
the postulates and the logical conclusions drawn from them.
The logical chain in Abrahamson's book is a
textbook case of circular
reasoning:
Abrahamson actually begins by postulating that God does not exist, but tries to
derive this as the conclusion from a deduction by substituting an equivalent
postulate: that nothing exists outside the universe. His entire reasoning boils
down to this statement: God does not exist. If you don't believe this, you are not rational. Furthermore, the conclusion contradicts one of
the premises: he asserts that there are no absolute truths, but treats the
nonexistence of God as an absolute truth throughout the book.
Abrahamson opposes religion to science, because it is not
possible to devise repetitive tests [about God] [page 3]. True. But neither can we do them about
Napoleon Bonaparte, or experiment with Rembrandt's paintings (what would have
happened if Rembrandt had used this technique rather than that, to paint the Anatomy Lesson?). In this sense, religion does not stand alone,
but alongside history, art, and other disciplines: those that use abduction
instead of induction, which is typical of the natural sciences.
Abrahamson has a concept of God that exists only in
his imagination, so his arguments are a case of the straw man fallacy. He says this: I, like you, felt the comfort of God,
this bearded, harsh, but benevolent father figure "up there" [page 4]. It would be better not to say “like
you.” I have never believed in such a figure.
The back cover describes Abrahamson as a
semi-retired pathologist who always wanted to be a physicist. The book explains why he couldn't: after five
decades of studying, he has developed a confused and mistaken idea of quantum
mechanics. For example, he hasn't understood the uncertainty principle. In
chapter 2 he confuses the use of probabilistic techniques in statistical
mechanics (the study of the motion of fluid particles) with quantum
uncertainty.
 |
| Werner Heisenberg |
He also doesn't seem to know much about probability
theory. When he says that the probability of an event can be considered zero if
it is less than 1/20, he is (mis)applying the statistical principle, used by physicians,
which associates reasonable certainty with 95% confidence. He is also wrong
when he says that, as Heisenberg showed, no probability can be... zero [page 25]. Heisenberg never said that. The
probability of an impossible event is zero. There are many impossible events,
such as squaring the circle with a compass and ruler.
The book contains blatant inaccuracies: Heisenberg
has shown that there is no absolute truth—anywhere. All we have is probability [page 12]: another example of Abrahamson's failure
to understand the uncertainty principle. Furthermore, this statement is
contradictory, for this is what it says: It is an absolute truth that there are no
absolute truths.
Abrahamson denies the existence of God because he
considers it incompatible with the fabric of our universe being probabilistic
rather than deterministic. Two centuries ago, Laplace denied his existence
because he believed the universe was deterministic. The atheistic reaction to
theories about the universe is this: heads, I win; tails, you lose.
Abrahamson's mistake seems to stem from his
identification of rationality with the application of the scientific method (scientism). But there is reason beyond the experimental
method. And Abrahamson himself acknowledges that the knowledge of even the most
erudite of scientists is over 99% based on the principle of authority.
Abrahamson sometimes is consistent with his ideas.
If God doesn't exist, as he claims, it follows that there is no absolute basis
for morality, good and evil, outside man. We arrive at relative, individual
morality. If we accept this, Hitler's morality was as defensible as any
other. To this I can only say that observed reality... is observed reality [page 37]. Very few atheists dare to take this
step. The trouble is that a relativistic morality is also contradictory.
Some authors try to prove the existence of God
based on a poor understanding of scientific advances. This book is an example
of the opposite attempt. Both may be damaging to the position they seek to
defend. Hopefully, they'll neutralize each other.
Manuel Alfonseca
No comments:
Post a Comment