Physicalism: the metaphysical position that everything which exists has a physical property; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things.
While contemplating the opening salvo of The God Delusion, I started thinking about the ideas of naturalism, materialism, and physicalism in relation to the scientific search to disprove the existence of God. After a while something was nagging at me…it just didn’t fit, logically.
Many people argue that the basis for Christian belief is circular. See Ryan’s second comment on my God Delusion chapter one post. The explanation I’ve heard most often is that the Bible says God is real, and since the Bible says it’s God’s word, it’s true. If all you’re basing your belief on is blind acceptance that the Bible is the truth, then it is quite circular.
But it finally clicked for me yesterday that this crusade undertaken by Richard Dawkins and many other scientists, to effectively disprove the existence of God through science is equally circular.
In order to undertake this search with the confidence that it will reveal the truth you have to begin with the assumption that science would reveal God’s presence, if he exists. You would also have to assume that anything that can’t be detected by science can’t exist. Since science can only detect physical things, you would be starting from the position of physicalism. What do we find when the research is conducted? That science didn’t detect anything supernatural, immaterial, or non-physical. Therefore physicalism (a synonym for Dawkins definition of atheism) is true.
But God is spirit. He can’t be detected by science. He is unquantifiable.
I know that any scientists or atheists who read this will automatically reject my argument. If you disagree, make a case for it, and let me know.
UPDATE: Ryan has correctly pointed out that I also used circular reasoning in my claim. I included in my premise that “science can only detect physical things”, a statement that can be called unfounded. I don’t believe it is unfounded, but I guess we don’t agree on that. So, here’s the reasoning behind my assumption that science can only detect physical or material things.
The only way (that I can think of) to know if science can detect immaterial or nonphysical entities, would be for science to actually detect an immaterial or nonphysical entity. If such entities were detected, it would prove that they exist, thereby increasing the probability of God’s existence. Then the true search to “prove God” could be undertaken, in the immateral, nonphysical arena. Theologically speaking, it would still be up to God to reveal himself. That is a “convenient excuse” from a scientific perspective, but an unavoidable variable from a theological one.
I know that I added another assumption into the premise of this statement, so if you can think of any other way to know if science is capable or incapable of detecting immaterial or nonphysical entities, please let me know.
Ryan Campbell
It seems like what you’re saying is, and this is what I’ve been told by other Christians, that everything comes down to faith. At some point, you either believe it, or you don’t.
It’s just incredibly convenient for God to be defined as something that cannot be detected, as you say. Then you can’t prove it either way. You can’t see him, he doesn’t talk to you, he in no way confirms his existence, and we can’t prove his existence, so, hey, just believe it.
More from authorElmo
Being glib about the spiritual nature of God doesn’t change it. The fact is, science can’t prove or disprove the existence of a spiritual realm/plane, because it’s not physical. You can choose to believe that the physical is all that exists or not. But that’s not something that science can answer.
As for the rest, God may not have talked to you, and you may not believe that the Bible is confirmation of His existence. In fact, you seem to ignore any evidence that points to the existence of God. If someone says they’ve had an experience of God, you might call it a delusion, or hallucination, or psychosis. It’s just incredibly convenient for you to dismiss a person’s testimony of God.
You can say that the evidence is no evidence at all, that the Biblical texts are meaningless, and that testimony of a personal revelation are unverifiable. But that would just be working the same method on the other side of the argument.
Rather than ridiculing my position, make a case against it.
Elmo
And it’s true, you can’t prove it either way. You can believe it or not, but don’t pretend you have proof.