Believing in Science

Introduction

Richard Dawkins’ argument that there is no God is an argument that purports to deploy scientific truth against religious belief. The question to put to Dawkins is:

• "Do you know that God does not exist or do you believe, on the basis of the evidence you accept, that God does not exist?"

The existence of a scientific explanation for observed phenomena doesn't prove that God does not exist. It is no more powerful than the fact of the existence of order in the Universe proves that God does exist.

Knowledge, belief and the unprovable

If Dawkins cannot know that God does not exist, then he can only believe that God does not exist. In this case he is in no stronger position than someone believes that God does exist. The question then reduces to a conflict of beliefs and turns upon the nature and type of evidence one is willing to accept.

The question of whether Gods exists or not may be unprovable. There is a philosophical limitation upon what we can know, being limited to our sense data plus a priori knowledge. This means that whether God exists or not may be unprovable.

Shifting the burden of proof

Why pay heed to Dawkins' argument? A creationist could claim that Dawkins is attacking their belief. For a literalist it is indeed a powerful attack upon a tenuous position. But as an attack upon the philosophical question about the existence of God the argument is not determinative.

The value of the argument lies in understanding how it impacts upon deciding who must carry the burden of proving the potentially unprovable question of whether or not God exists. Dawkins may say that, given the existence of successful scientific explanations for observed physical phenomena including the evolutionary model there is no need for other explanations. This passes the burden of proving the existence of God on to those who believe in the existence of God.

To be persuaded by Dawkins' argument is to accept that the burden of proving the existence of God has shifted onto those who believe in the existence of God. There would be much sympathy with this view given the religious persecution of unbelievers by believers over the historical time frame.

The natural limits of scientific truth

For most people, becoming embroiled in a skeptical attack whose success lies in an attempt to shift the burden of proof, is to miss the point. The point is that science does not explain everything we observe. Even if it did it cannot comment upon what it cannot observe. Because there are things it cannot observe there are hypotheses it cannot test.

In addition to a materialistic world view scientific explanations rest upon certain beliefs and assumptions. At the heart of the scientific model is a belief system - a belief that the physical world is all that exists (materialism), a belief that there are rules that govern how the physical universe operates, a belief that the rules that apply here today apply everywhere today and a belief that the rules that apply today applied yesterday.

These beliefs lead to a belief that what happened yesterday will happen again tomorrow, everywhere. Interestingly in the quantum world view cause and effect are not always so clearly connected. This may reflect what we can know or compute, or it may reflect a fundamental property of the universe.

Conclusion

Despite these grounding beleifs science is a successful belief system for our modern material world. But there are already many religions in the world. Is Science a belief system to conquer all others? Not unless it can deal with the central question of the existence of God. If it wants this crown it will have to retrieve the burden of proof and then discharge it successfully.

Looking on an agnostic Hindu would simply shrug his shoulders and say "Why not let Dawkins follow his religion of science?" There are indeed many ways to God.

Links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

http://www.skepticalchristian.com/r_dawkins.htm

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&catID=2