Comment

Video: The Basics of Evolution

677
Salamantis4/04/2009 6:20:29 pm PDT

In systems of belief, the basic premise must lie outside the purview of knowledge. This means that it may neither be undeniably demonstrable by example, nor unequivocally denied by counterexample. Furthermore, induction proceeds from empirical data to statistically probable conclusions. The presence of a single measurable and repeatable supporting datum would place the premise within the realm of probability, which is not belief, but statistical knowledge, while the presence of a single measurable and repeatable contradicting datum would render the premise untrue. Belief systems must therefore be grounded upon absolute and not relative premises. This entails that the basic premise may not be statistically probable, in other words, it may neither be empirically verifiable nor empirically falsifiable. This of course means that belief systems may not proceed from induction.

This is true of both theism (basic premise: God is) and atheism (basic premise: God is not). Our sciences, which proceed by induction according to the Verification Principle, are sciences of matter and energy. The sine qua non (condition in the absence of which they would not be what they are) of matter and energy is that they are sense-perceivable phenomena. These immanent objects of perception are then measured by relating our perceptions of them to our perceptions of intersubjectively agreed-upon standards of measurement that are themselves physical. These quantified perceptions must then be amenable to repetition at will by means of any duplication of the conditions under which they appear. This method cannot be used to either verify or falsify the presence or absence of transcendent nonphysical Mind. Our sensuous perceptions, our technological augmentation of them, our devices of measurement, our method of repetition are all immanent and physical; they are categorically incapable of this task. We cannot prove that God is anywhere, and neither can we prove that there is anywhere that God is not.

Induction is useless with respect to either theism or atheism; the basic premise must be believed in, rather than known, and in either case, conclusions must follow by means of deduction from the basic premise, not induction from empirically obtained data. This explains why both belief systems accept the principle of noncontradiction as apodictically (self-evidently) true. They both proceed by means of deduction from assumed a priori postulates. And adherents of either system cannot KNOW them to be true, for they lack the empirical evidence necessary to either claim such knowledge, or to falsify the opposite position (absence of any evidence for presence is not equivalent to the presence of evidence for absence). In either case, the systems can only be either BELIEVED IN, or not. And therefore theism and atheism are both systems of belief (if, that is, one is believing in the absence of God, rather than simply not having a belief in God’s presence, which is not at all the same thing). Which means that neither of them can claim to be naturalistic, scientific, or empirical, because both of them are also making supernatural, extra-empirical claims concerning deific existence or nonexistence.

One can, however, lack a belief in God’s presence without having to believe in God’s absence. In fact, several religions, such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, utterly lack God-concepts. Adherents of these faiths are not so much atheistic as they are nontheistic, and many nonreligious secularists could be counted as nontheistic (rather than atheistic) as well.