Adica ultima incercare de a prezenta argumentul de aici si aici intr-o forma mai buna pe blogul asta. De data asta textul e scris in engleza. Motivele sunt doua. Unul este ca uneori am impresia ca ma pot exprima mai bine in engleza. Al doilea este ca chiar ma intereseaza reactiile critice si sper ca un text in engleza, fiindu-le accesibil mai multor oameni, va putea primi mai multe critici interesante.

Observatie: Textul nu e academic si nici nu intru in prea multe detalii si subtilitati. Am incercat sa pastrez lucrurile la nivelul discutiilor pe care le-am citit pe unele bloguri. In plus, textul a fost scris in vreo ora si ceva, in noaptea asta. S-ar putea sa mai aiba niste exprimari ciudate sau chiar gresite. Dar tot mi se pare mai limpede decat cele doua chestii pe care le-am scris deja. Having that in mind, happy reading! 🙂

[start here]

In what follows I want to claim that there can be no empirical evidence either for or against the existence of God. By empirical evidence I mean any evidence accessible to our senses which could be used to establish some truths about facts.

We have used such evidence, for instance, to prove the hypothesis about Neptune’s existence or the one about the existence of atoms. What I want to say is that no such evidence can be produced to confirm or infirm the existence of God.

To support my claim I want first to point to an analogy. No set of factual descriptions could be used to argue that some event was, in fact, a murder. If we only describe the physical movements of different body parts and other objects belonging to the victim and to the assailant, we couldn’t say that we’ve described a crime of some sort.

To say that something was a murder we must interpret the facts in some way. We must say that some physical movements were in fact an action, that the agent knew what he or she was doing, that it was his or her intention not only to kill but to murder the other person and so forth.

Now, let’s imagine a person who does not believe that there are real murderers. Could we provide this person with enough empirical evidence for the existence or murderers? Would the confession of a murderer count as such an evidence? In short, I don’t think so.

Why is that? Well, because “x is a murder” is not the description of a fact, but an evaluation of a fact, based on an interpretation. “He confessed that he committed a murder” cannot mean anything else but “he confessed that he did the actions that led to the other person’s death and he interpreted his actions as a murder”. But he could, of course, be wrong. And if I don’t believe that there is such a thing as a murder, I could, of course, doubt his interpretation about his own actions.

If you find this example unacceptable, perhaps I could produce a better one. But these sorts of examples have only one purpose – to show you that some statements, although they look like factual statements, are sentences of a different kind. “Murderers exist” is not like “Atoms exist”.

In the same way, “God exists” is not a factual sentence. This sentence, for instance, is not equivalent to “An omniscient, all powerful, absolutely good person exists.” One could accept the later, based on some empirical evidence perhaps, but still reject the former.

To say that a person who displays all the evidence that he could posses some (or all of the) divine attributes actually is God takes and act of faith and a particular interpretation of the evidence that you have empirical access to. Without such in interpretation, no facts could prove to you that “God does exist.”

So, the analogy was this. A person might not believe, for instance, that there could actually exist some people who would take from others’ private property, knowing what they do and intending to steal. For such a person, no empirical evidence could count as a confirmation of the sentence “Thieves do exist.” In the same way, for a person who does not believe in God, there cannot be an empirical confirmation for “God does exist.”

Note that my argument does not rely on the fact that God is described as having infinite knowledge, power, goodness, while we cannot have empirical evidence for such infinite qualities.

It does not rely, either, on the distinction between “believing that God exists” and “believing in God”.

My point is that “God exists” assumes an interpretation of facts, and such an interpretation is not possible without a religious commitment, in the same way in which “Thieves do exist” cannot be accepted without a moral commitment of some sort.

An atheist could witness, for instance, all the biblical actions of Jesus Christ without becoming a religious person. And of course, a non-believer could become a believer due to letting himself persuaded by some events and interpretations, but this does not make those events count as “empirical evidence for God’s existence.”

Another analogy would run this way. Suppose you believe you exist. Suppose now that somebody shows you how you were made from some organic stuff closely resembling the stuff real humans are made from, in a secret lab. Suppose, in addition, that you are shown that you are, in fact, a computer and all your memories are fake. It is, of course, implausible that this could happen, but it is not inconceivable. Would this make you believe that you do not really exist? I don’t think so.

In the same way, if one does believe that God exists, no empirical evidence could change his opinion. There is a symmetry here. It is not possible in principle for the atheist or for the believer to reasonably change their opinion about God’s existence in view of some empirical evidence.

One could argue, of course, about which life would be a better life – the one lived by a believer or the one lived by an atheist. But this would be a different discussion.