Evidence for God
One of the most common objections atheists have against belief in God is that there is "no evidence". Atheists know they cannot prove that God does not exist, because you cannot logically prove a negative, so they go for the next best thing.
"There is no evidence that God exists. You may have had some kind of personal experience – what we [call] 'anecdotal evidence' that has convinced you personally that he’s out there. But most people would concede that that kind of evidence is not evidence at all. It can’t be repeated under test conditions and there are other possible explanations for what may have happened." [The five best reasons not to believe in God]
First, argument from absence of evidence is a type of the logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). [Argument from ignorance] Even if it is true that there is no evidence it in no way proves that believers are wrong.
However, I challenge the assertion that anecdotal evidence is "not evidence" or is never useful. "Most scientific and medical discoveries have their roots in anecdotes, which have led to hypotheses that are then proved by rigorous testing. In some circumstances, the anecdotal evidence can be so spectacularly convincing that the need for further confirmation diminishes. For example, when Howard Florey and Ernst Chain developed the drug penicillin based on Alexander Fleming’s earlier work, the antibiotic properties were so striking that it was introduced for use without long-term trials." [Smart Health Choices: Making Sense of Health Advice]
So, in a medical context the potential benefits of a treatment may outweigh the need for rigorous testing. If anecdotal evidence can be useful in a medical context, then why not also in a religious context? If the claims of religious people are true, the benefits are indeed great, and the greater the potential benefits the more they outweigh the need for absolute proof.
This brings to mind Pascal's Wager. Pascal, a noted mathematician and philosopher, argued that the benefits of belief in God stand to be infinite if God does in fact exist compared to a finite benefit of not believing in God in the case where God does not exist. So, Pascal argued that belief in God is an infinitely safer bet.
But anecdotal evidence is not, in fact, the only type of evidence offered by believers. In his book "God: The Evidence" [God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World], Patrick Glynn tells the story of how he went from atheist to believer. From the book description, "Patrick Glynn lays out the astonishing new evidence that caused him to turn away from the atheism he acquired as a student at Harvard and Cambridge. The facts are fascinating: Physicists are discovering an unexplainable order to the cosmos; medical researchers are reporting the extraordinary healing powers of prayer and are documenting credible accounts of near-death experiences; psychologists, who once considered belief in God to be a sign of neurosis, are finding instead that religious faith is a powerful elixir for mental health; and sociologists are now acknowledging the destructive consequences of a value-free society."
"From a Christian perspective, asking 'why isn’t there more evidence for God?' is less like an objection and more like a starting point for the spiritual journey. 'For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.' Mt 7:8." [WHY ISN’T THERE MORE EVIDENCE FOR GOD?]
"There is no evidence that God exists. You may have had some kind of personal experience – what we [call] 'anecdotal evidence' that has convinced you personally that he’s out there. But most people would concede that that kind of evidence is not evidence at all. It can’t be repeated under test conditions and there are other possible explanations for what may have happened." [The five best reasons not to believe in God]
First, argument from absence of evidence is a type of the logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). [Argument from ignorance] Even if it is true that there is no evidence it in no way proves that believers are wrong.
However, I challenge the assertion that anecdotal evidence is "not evidence" or is never useful. "Most scientific and medical discoveries have their roots in anecdotes, which have led to hypotheses that are then proved by rigorous testing. In some circumstances, the anecdotal evidence can be so spectacularly convincing that the need for further confirmation diminishes. For example, when Howard Florey and Ernst Chain developed the drug penicillin based on Alexander Fleming’s earlier work, the antibiotic properties were so striking that it was introduced for use without long-term trials." [Smart Health Choices: Making Sense of Health Advice]
So, in a medical context the potential benefits of a treatment may outweigh the need for rigorous testing. If anecdotal evidence can be useful in a medical context, then why not also in a religious context? If the claims of religious people are true, the benefits are indeed great, and the greater the potential benefits the more they outweigh the need for absolute proof.
This brings to mind Pascal's Wager. Pascal, a noted mathematician and philosopher, argued that the benefits of belief in God stand to be infinite if God does in fact exist compared to a finite benefit of not believing in God in the case where God does not exist. So, Pascal argued that belief in God is an infinitely safer bet.
But anecdotal evidence is not, in fact, the only type of evidence offered by believers. In his book "God: The Evidence" [God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World], Patrick Glynn tells the story of how he went from atheist to believer. From the book description, "Patrick Glynn lays out the astonishing new evidence that caused him to turn away from the atheism he acquired as a student at Harvard and Cambridge. The facts are fascinating: Physicists are discovering an unexplainable order to the cosmos; medical researchers are reporting the extraordinary healing powers of prayer and are documenting credible accounts of near-death experiences; psychologists, who once considered belief in God to be a sign of neurosis, are finding instead that religious faith is a powerful elixir for mental health; and sociologists are now acknowledging the destructive consequences of a value-free society."
"From a Christian perspective, asking 'why isn’t there more evidence for God?' is less like an objection and more like a starting point for the spiritual journey. 'For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.' Mt 7:8." [WHY ISN’T THERE MORE EVIDENCE FOR GOD?]
Comments
Post a Comment