h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

(Ex)(square circle = x)

Nothing wrong with that at all. But which "square circle" are you referring to?

This all seems horribly like mathematics to me!

Am I correct in thinking that when I asked in what sense an explanation could be said to exist this was interpreted as a question about the ways in which it could be said that something exists, rather than as a question about the usage of the verb 'to exist'?

No, it can't be that; I just checked, and what I actually asked was, 'In what sense does an explanation exist?' A question which the existential quantifier doesn't answer.

"So, here's a scientific question, open to anyone: what empirically observable feature(s), or absence of feature(s), of the universe ... would necessarily differ between a universe containing a deity ... and a universe not containing a deity?"

Well, a big face in the clouds shouting 'It was me wot made it all!' would be strong evidence for the former.

But, barring historical documents of questionable veracity, there is no evidence of such a 'hands-on' deity to draw on. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. But if we have a Bayesian outlook then our own personal beliefs can changein light of this continued absence. For some, the strong in faith, it alters their beliefs little. In others, the probability vanishes to nothing. Neither is 'wrong' as such perspectives are subjective.

On the other hand, any belief that is incapable of change (such as religious inflexibility or unchanging atheism) is, well, poor. If you are incapable of change then you are incapable of improvement and it is gross arrogance to say that your beliefs have no room for improvement.

Post 554, RFJS:

"So, here's a scientific question, open to anyone: what empirically observable feature(s), or absence of feature(s), of the universe (i.e. 'everything there is', but bear in mind that science can only deal with what can be determined by examination of empirical data) would necessarily differ between a universe containing a deity (presumably consistent with the usual Christian theological understanding of God: omnipotent, omniscient, etc. -- but feel free to apply this to any other ) and a universe not containing a deity?"

This looks like a good question.

Defining the deity is obviously the first hurdle. The Christian 'triple O' definition has some merit perhaps but falls into the logical exclusion between omniscience and omnipotence. I'm prepared to accept an 'almost' proviso to either or both of those Omnis. For the deity to be such it also has to be undetectable and unreachable by any means other than allowable channels other than, say, prayer. If not it become merely an impressively powerful alien - the magic is gone.

Defining the universe is the next question. 'Everything there is' seems logical which puts the deity firmly within the universe - albeit possibly outside the observable portion of it. An immediate problem arises in the question of how did a deity create a universe of which it is necessarily a part? Perhaps the definition needs to allow for our 'universe' to be a part of a broader Universe; the deity resides in the Universe and from there created our universe and possibly others.

Unless the deity is undetectable (by definition) then, logically, there will be detectable evidence thereof. We do not need to know what that is, just that it must be present.

Consequently we have two options:

A godless Universe which was created spontaneously by as yet unknown means from Nothing and has followed as yet only partially understood physical laws to reach the situation we are now able to observe.

A universe created by a deity from a Universe which includes the deity which itself was created by unknown means from Nothing. This universe appears to follow as yet only partially understood physical laws but, in fact, is being controlled by undetectable outside influences from an equally undetectable being (which is more or less omniscient and more or less omnipotent) for personal reasons which we can only guess at.

I know the simplest explanations aren't always necessarily the right ones but the second scenario, as always, begs the question 'how was the deity itself created?'

From an empirical evidence viewpoint the deity has to be undetectable or it simply would not be a deity in the accepted definition. Logically then there could be no observable difference between the two universes from a scientific point of view, which answers the original question.

In our primitive past there were explanations for the unknown - the 'ultimate questions' - which we now consider fanciful, often because they did not even answer the question they set out to address. For example it was once believed that the Earth was flat and that it was supported on the back of a giant tortoise. This in turn stood on another tortoise and so on 'all the way down'. Of course this begs the question 'all the way down to what?' Today, after centuries of observation and experiment, we know the Earth isn't flat and NASA has no pictures of giant tortoises.

There is one 'ultimate question' left. The observers and experimenters are inclined to say the Universe was created out of Nothing. They are willing to admit they don't know how but say there is plenty of scope for further investigation. The faithful say 'God made the Universe'. They can't say who made God and may consider it blasphemous to even ask the question. To me one of these answers still sounds like 'tortoises all the way down'.

F

"Logically then there could be no observable difference between the two universes from a scientific point of view, which answers the original question."

Exactly! If you take an extreme behavioural approach and say objects are only defined by behaviour, then the two options are actually equivalent.

As far as the original topic goes, I'm all in favour of a more rigorously enforced coparative religion curriculum in schools.

I'd go farther, though. I think that 'religion as fact' should never be taught in anything calling itself a school. I do not think faith schools are a good thing. However, I do think parents should be at liberty to send their children to 'faith clubs' where they can receive the religious instruction of their choice.

<>

Yes, because the original topic is not really concerned about proving whether there is a God or not or what is Truth or whether Truth even exists.

It is about giving children a more well-rounded education in terms of what other people believe (*not* about whether these beliefs are true or otherwise).

az

But as anyone with experience of education will tell you, if a teacher presents two or more alternative viewpoints, the very first question the class will ask is "which is true/right/your belief?". And as soon as a teacher even attempts to answer that question - and it would be a better man than I who could resist - you have bias.

Might I suggest that there is at least a third scenario?

A Universe which was created spontaneously by as yet unknown means from Nothing and has followed as yet only partially understood physical laws to reach the situation we are now able to observe. A part of which is a deity or deities which can exert an influence on the universe or those part of it which created them.

hi Madent,

The third scenario sounds more or less what I believe. And yes, I believe the deity or deities were created by man to explain as much and as far as they can see and experience of the 'unknown'.

az

"But as anyone with experience of education will tell you, if a teacher presents two or more alternative viewpoints, the very first question the class will ask is "which is true/right/your belief?". And as soon as a teacher even attempts to answer that question - and it would be a better man than I who could resist - you have bias."

I don't think that a teacher saying 'I happen to be a Roman Catholic' would unduly influence a class of students. It may well associate Roman Catholicism with whatever they think of the teacher (good or bad) but then the alternative (no discussion of the issue at all, or openly biased discussion) is worse. The whole point of comparative religion is to make sure that the children learn about other cultures and faiths, so they do not automatically fall back on dismissal and ridicule when they encounter them. For that purpose, even a slightly biased version is better than nothing.

<>



az

Some interesting articles on this topic today

Archbishop Rowan Williams comments on seeing the Phillip Pullman's alledgly "blasphemous" 'His Dark Materials' at a theatre...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1166054,00.html

And this article has his comments on religious education....

http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=499657

'Well, a big face in the clouds shouting 'It was me wot made it all!' would be strong evidence for the former.'

May I draw attention to the use of the word 'necessarily' in the question?

'gross arrogance'

Quite possibly, but that sounds a touch ad hominem...

'falls into the logical exclusion between omniscience and omnipotence'

Presumably you mean that an omnipotent being could will ignorance upon itself. I'm not sure that that is a logical problem if the being does not will it; although if it did then it would of course cease to be omniscient. I'm not entirely sure that that's what you did mean, though.

'Defining the universe is the next question. 'Everything there is' seems logical which puts the deity firmly within the universe - albeit possibly outside the observable portion of it. An immediate problem arises in the question of how did a deity create a universe of which it is necessarily a part? Perhaps the definition needs to allow for our 'universe' to be a part of a broader Universe; the deity resides in the Universe and from there created our universe and possibly others.'

Fair enough; I was using Noggin's definition, which doesn't necessarily coincide with everyone's conventional usage.

'Unless the deity is undetectable (by definition) then, logically, there will be detectable evidence thereof.'

How about 'undetectable in fact'? I can postulate an entity that is potentially either detectable or undetectable (as an omnipotent being presumably would be) and is in fact undetectable (but could, by its own volition or some other cause, be otherwise).

'This universe appears to follow as yet only partially understood physical laws but, in fact, is being controlled by undetectable outside influences from an equally undetectable being (which is more or less omniscient and more or less omnipotent) for personal reasons which we can only guess at.'

Not necessarily; I left open the possibility of a deistic God when I set up the question. I asked about evidence for or against the existence of a deity, not about the intervention of a deity.

'I know the simplest explanations aren't always necessarily the right ones but the second scenario, as always, begs the question "how was the deity itself created?"'

Which is a perfectly good question, but not the one I asked. At any rate, one doesn't need to know why something might exist in order to try to determine whether it does.

'From an empirical evidence viewpoint the deity has to be undetectable or it simply would not be a deity in the accepted definition. Logically then there could be no observable difference between the two universes from a scientific point of view, which answers the original question.'



'Today, after centuries of observation and experiment, we know the Earth isn't flat and NASA has no pictures of giant tortoises.'

So I do not question the supporting logic of the widely believed-in non-flatness of the Earth and nonexistence of giant tortoises supporting it.

'There is one 'ultimate question' left. The observers and experimenters are inclined to say the Universe was created out of Nothing. They are willing to admit they don't know how but say there is plenty of scope for further investigation. The faithful say 'God made the Universe'. They can't say who made God and may consider it blasphemous to even ask the question. To me one of these answers still sounds like "tortoises all the way down".'

*Sees the words 'ultimate question', tries not to mention 42, realises that he just has.*

Okay. In the first place, I'm not convinced that the analogy is valid; the reason for the rejection of the tortoises is that, empirically, their existence has been disproven; if the world did (demonstrably) rest on an infinite tower of tortoises, then for a scientist to assert that it did would be far more reasonable than asserting the converse. The tortoises were a perfectly good hypothesis _until_ the empirical evidence started to be collected. Which brings me back to my original question: what empirical evidence could show whether the 'God hypothesis' is as inconsistent with the evidence as the 'tortoise hypothesis'?

In the second place, this attack on 'the faithful' seems to be directed at a straw man, rather than at the uncommitted, agnostic question I actually asked. I want to know whether there is a deity, not what 'the faithful' think about Him.

RFJS,

It seems very unlikely that children would get to the level of proving or disproving deities, the universe etc. that you and others have been discussing here. It *is* very interesting, just somewhat off-topic.

How do you see philosophy fitting into a school programme for children?


az

hi Otto,

The links look very interesting - will read them when I get home from work later this evening.

az