There is no shortage of people out there who claim to prove that God exists. Every now and again I'll pick out one of these and examine it to try to persuade myself that the logic works.
There are two reasons why this is useful: first, if someone's proved that God exists, I'd like to know about it, and so should everybody else! Second, if the "proof" is bogus, we should expose it - not because we doubt the prover's devout belief in God, but because religion shouldn't get a free ride. If the logic sucks, people shouldn't be browbeaten into believing that they shouldn't question it just because it's about God. If anyone doesn't deserve a free pass, it's God. He is, after all the supreme being. If anyone should get a boost, it's the rest of us...
So here goes. Today's logical, pragmatic proof of God from a purely scientific perspective.
1. The Beginning
This site begins with the most trivial of false proofs: "If A is not true, then B must be true." A false dichotomy. This part of the site says "The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct." Now, there's a lot of bogus science in this section to try and support the first half of this false dichotomy, but that's not my main problem with this section. There is not an iota of evidence to support the second half "The Biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct." To make these false dichotomies is intellectually dishonest. It's just plain wrong, and it's designed to mislead people.
2. The Cause
Oh dear - this is going to get boring - same old false dichotomy approach. "The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is ... incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence." Again, there's a lot of bogus science in this section, but again, that's not my main problem. There is not an iota of evidence to support the second half. Again - to make these false dichotomies is intellectually dishonest. It's just plain wrong, and it's designed to mislead people.
3. The Design
"For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance." This is the quality of "proof" that is provided. It's the proof from ignorance. "I don't understand how this could have happened, so God must have done it." It's followed by the third false dichotomy in a row: "If chance is not valid, we are constrained to ... realize that we are the product of an intelligent God." Why on Earth are we constrained to do that? This is just plain dishonesty, tarted up in religious terms to pretend it's science.
If this kind of dishonesty was being perpetrated in any other field, we'd pursue these people as fraudsters and hucksters. But because it's shrouded in religion (which let's face it is more important than most of the frauds perpetrated today) we're expected to let this kind of nonsense pass for logic?
This is dangerous and should be stopped. Let's have some honesty in this debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment