time and never found any. They might therefore conclude that no one is justified in believing that unicorns
exist. They might show how certain facts considered to be evidence for unicorns in
the past can be explained
adequately by other things. They may invoke Occam's Razor to favor a simpler explanation for the facts than
that unicorns exist. But scientists can never prove unicorns themselves don't exist. Since science, by its very
nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science
has proven God doesn't exist. That's a misuse of the discipline. Such a claim would require omniscience. The
only way one can say a thing does not exist is not by
using the inductive method, but by using a deductive
method, by showing that there's something about the concept itself that is contradictory.
I can confidently say for sure that no square circles exist. Why? Not because I've searched the entire universe
to make sure that there aren't any square circles hiding behind a star somewhere. No, I don't need to search
the world to answer that question.
The concept of square circles entails a contradictory notion, and therefore can't be real. A thing cannot be a
square and be circular (i.e., not a square) at the same time. A thing cannot be a circle and squared (i.e., not a
circle) at the same time. Therefore, square circles cannot exist. The laws of rationality (specifically, the law
of non-contradiction) exclude the possibility of their existence. This means, by the way, that all inductive
knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive
method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in
an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly
justifies
scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty.
If you want to know something for certain, with no possibility of error--what's called apodictic certainty in
philosophy--you must employ the deductive method.
There have been attempts to use the deductive method to show that certain ways of thinking about God are
contradictory. The deductive problem of evil is like that. If God were all good, the argument goes, He would
want to get rid of evil. If
God were all powerful, He'd be able to get rid of evil. Since we still have evil, then
God either is not good or not powerful, or neither, but He can't be both.
If this argument is sustained, then religion is defeated, because contradictory things (the belief that God is
both good and powerful in the face of evil) cannot be true at the same time. The job
of the Hebrew believer at
this point is to show there isn't a necessary contradiction in their view of God, that genuine love does not
require that there be no evil or suffering [as suffering often serves to improve our flawed humanity, not only
giving us a better life perspective, but also a wise, merciful and humble heart].
So don't be cowed or bullied by any comments that science has proven there is no God. Science can't do that
because it uses the inductive method, not the deductive method. When you
hear someone make that claim,
don't contradict them. Simply ask this question: "How can science prove that someone like God doesn't
exist? Explain to me how science can do that. Spell it out".
You can even choose something you have no good reason to believe actually does exist--unicorns, or
leprechauns, for that matter. Make that person show you, in principle, how science is capable of proving that
any particular thing does not exist. He won't be able to. All he'll be able to show you is that science has
proven certain things do exist, not that they don't exist. There's a difference. Some take the position that if
science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply
the false
assumption scientism. Don't ever concede the idea that science is the only method available to learn things
about the world.
925
Remember the line in the movie “Contact”? Ellie Arroway claimed she loved her father, but she couldn't
prove it scientifically. Does that mean she didn't really love him? No scientific test known to man could ever
prove such a thing. Ellie knew her own love for her father directly and immediately. She didn't have to learn
it from some scientific test.
There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we
do know through other ways.
Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the
world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. (Even this, though, is debated among
philosophers of science.) However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the
world; its methodology limits it significantly.
One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything.
So when people try to
use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this
just makes science look bad.
The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even
evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law --natural law-- must
explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is
cheating, though.
Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this
truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something
profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
