Sunday, July 5, 2009

Is Absence of Evidence, Evidence of Absence? Part 1

By Shaun

1. Introduction

The famous British philosopher Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say if he found himself before God on Judgment Day and God said to him, “Why didn’t you believe in Me?” Russell shot right back: “Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!”

Many have taken what they consider to be an apparent lack of evidence for God as evidence that God doesn’t exist; that is, they look around, don’t see “enough” evidence and conclude that atheism is true.

But Russell realized that the inference from apparent lack of evidence for God to atheism is fallacious. That’s why in his famous debate in 1948 with Frederick Copleston he preferred the label “agnostic” instead of “atheist.” Yet today, many call themselves “atheists” when really they are agnostics.

Let’s first define some terms around the question “Does God exist?”

"Does God exist?"

Theism: "God exists"

Non-theism: "I don't believe in God"

 

Agnosticism: “I don’t know if God exists”

Atheism: “God does not exist”

Hard Agnosticism: "I don't know
if God exists and no one else can
know either."

Soft Agnosticism: "I don't know
if God exists, but it's possible for
someone to know."

Notice a few things about these definitions. First, non-theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive because you could be a non-theist and so fail to believe in God (i.e., you could lack belief in God) but you might also be an agnostic saying, “For all I know, God exists. I just don’t know.” Notice also how extreme hard agnosticism is, since it claims even more than atheists do; the hard agnostic says that everyone is wrong, both atheists and theists, and that they cannot know what they claim, even if they have apparently sound arguments! Little wonder, then, that hard agnosticism is sometimes called “ostrich agnosticism!”

There are sound arguments for God’s existence. Some of them are very good. But suppose it were not so; suppose all the arguments for God fail and there are no further good reasons to believe in God. What follows?—Atheism? It’s very important to realize that the answer to this question is NO. What follows is, at most, soft agnosticism.


2. When Does Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence? (Or, when is the inference from “I see none” to “there is none” valid?)

What I have said so far raises the question, When does the absence of evidence become evidence of absence? This is a good question because sometimes (but not always) the former implies the latter. Let’s start with some examples to work with.

Example 1. Elephants in the Room (Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence)
Someone asks, “Are there any elephants in the room?” After looking about and seeing none, I say, “No, I see none. There are no elephants in the room.”

The inference from “I see none” to “There are none” in this example is justified. With respect to elephants in this room, I’m not agnostic; rather, I positively affirm: There are no elephants in the room. In this case, absence of elephants in the room is evidence of their absence. But this inference doesn’t hold for Example 2.

Example 2. The Grand Canyon Fly (Absence of Evidence ≠ Evidence of Absence)
We’re standing atop the Grand Canyon and someone asks, “Is there a fly way down there?” After a quick glance I say, “No, I see none. There is no fly down there.”

As in the last example we move from “I see none” to “There is none”—but unlike the last example the conclusion is unjustified. Agnosticism regarding the fly is the appropriate response here. So in the Elephant Example we don’t have to be agnostics, but in the Grand Canyon Fly Example we do. Why? Notice that it is not the relative size of the object which creates the difference (The zookeeper might have asked you on your zoo trip, “Do you think an elephant is in the cage in the next room?” to which your reply might be agnosticism: “I have no idea. Maybe.”)

The salient difference between these two examples has entirely to do with your epistemic situation — which is, roughly, the extent and limits of your ability to know something through your primary sources of knowing (i.e. perception, memory, introspection, testimony, etc.) — and the fact that only in one situation (Elephants in the Room) do we expect to have knowledge which we lack. My epistemic situation regarding knowing whether an elephant is in the room is quite good, while my epistemic situation regarding knowing whether a fly resides at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is quite poor. Why? When are we in an epistemically good situation in order to say, “There is no X”? What conditions have to be met? At least two. In the absence of evidence of an object O you may deny that O exists only if these Criteria are met:

Evidence Expectation Criterion. If an object O existed, then we would expect there to be evidence for it.

Knowledge Expectation Criterion. If there were evidence of object O, then we would expect to have knowledge of the evidence.

In short, in the absence of evidence, we can deny the existence of something O only if we should expect to possess evidence sufficient to know that O exists but in fact lack it.

To prove his position the atheist has his task cut out for himself: What he must do is show that (a) the epistemic situation in which we find ourselves with respect to belief in God’s existence satisfies the above Criteria; and (b) demonstrate that we lack sufficient evidence for knowing that God exists. Equivalently, he must show that all the arguments for God are unsound and then argue that if God existed then we would expect to be in a position to know whether God exists. But as we’ll see, there is good reason to think (a) is false because our epistemic situation in which we find ourselves with respect to belief in God’s existence does not satisfy the above Criteria.

Source: ReasonableFaith.org

Read Part 2

21 comments:

  1. I would like to tell our friends who do not believe that God does not exist.
    Inshort i am asking these people to go Nigeria to see what is happening. People with HIV?AIDs are cured or any problem by a man of God TB Joshua. He uses no medication but only JESUS CHRIST name. I want the to go and see. if not let them go with their problems. This what is happening. The powers comes from God Himself.
    Time has come for these people to believe and know that Jesus is coming soon. On this earth we other people who can cure people using Jesus Name.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting, but I think many atheists (including Dawkins) will admit that in reality they are hard agnostics. As scientists they know there is no proof against the Divine, therefore they cannot claim pure atheism.

    Regarding absence of evidence, it is unfortunate when atheists say they are attempting to prove there is no God. According to their own worldview they must acknowledge that reaching such proof is impossible. However, what they are doing is attempting to refute a particular God. When a religion makes certain claims about the attributes or actions of a deity, that makes those aspects verifiable or falsifiable. Anything other than the Blind Watchmaker has entered the world and can be questioned by the scientific method. The idea of God cannot be disproved, but specific Gods can be disproved.

    While Russell admitted that overall he was agnostic, regarding the Christian god he was atheist. Dawkins and others have pointed out that monotheists are atheistic about the Greco-Roman, Nordic, and Egyptian pantheons. Agnostics are really just atheistic about all the different systems of religious belief.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Joel
    "Time has come for these people to believe and know that Jesus is coming soon. On this earth we other people who can cure people using Jesus Name."

    I would like to see this independently verified rather than taking hearsay at face value. Also, Jesus has been "coming soon" since he died. Every single generation for 2000 years has warned of an immanent arrival. I'm sorry but the Millenialists have become the "faith that cried wolf" for me - I'm no longer listening because the past 500+ times were lies too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. *Clarification: When I said "Blind Watchmaker" is misspoke, as I forgot the other theories and debates attached to it. I merely meant a distant, inactive, impersonal force, or First Cause.

    Rewritten:
    "Anything other than the Primum Movens has entered the world and can be questioned by the scientific method."

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Also, Jesus has been "coming soon" since he died."

    Yes, but you do understand that soon does not necessarily mean a few years, it can be mean any amount of time?

    Moreover, Jesus' return is now 2000 years closer than when it was mentioned in the book of Revelation. So you better get ready for it. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Yes, but you do understand that soon does not necessarily mean a few years, it can be mean any amount of time?"

    Oh. My. Goodness. I literally laughed out loud when I read that. "Soon" can mean any inordinate amount of time? I'm going to have to use that more often:

    "Brad, when are you going to get that project done?"
    "Oh, soon. I'll get it done soon."

    It's too bad you have to redefine the word "soon" to fit your theological worldview. With a sane definition it doesn't even work well in YEC, since 2000 years is between 1/3 to 1/5 of all time. That's not soon at all!

    "So you better get ready for it. ;)"

    No thanks, I'd rather not. Every single generation for the past 2000 years that has "gotten ready" has been wrong. I'm not a betting man, but in this case I think the odds are clearly in my favor.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Matthew 24:32-34: "Now learn the lesson of the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

    Im pretty sure that after 2000 years, that generation is still dead. Ipso facto, Christ did not live up to his promise.

    Your God is a myth and your organisation are just fantasy merchants with a penchant for theft of the work of others.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Im pretty sure that after 2000 years, that generation is still dead. Ipso facto, Christ did not live up to his promise.

    Come on Alex, surely you know that if you take the 'text' out of 'context' all you are left with is a 'con'.

    You have completely neglected the context of the passage. Notice in verse 33 of Matthew 24, Jesus says "When you see these things", now the question we need to ask, "What things?"

    To find out that answer we need to look at the beginning of this Olivet Discourse.

    In verse 2, Jesus says that one of the things people will see is the destruction of the temple, which was fulfilled in 70AD under Roman General Titus. Since, Jesus spoke these words in about 33 AD, the generation would have still been living.

    Also, he deals with the beginning of the signs of his return (v3-14) which of course the disciples who were present witnessed (read book of Acts).

    From v15-28, Jesus deals with something being set up in the temple and causing it to be a desolation. Which we know from history occurred in 70 AD when the Roman army set up elements of their religion and military standards in the temple. This can be evidenced by looking at the Arch of Titus in Rome, which was made to celebrate the sacking of the temple.

    Jesus then says from v29-31, that after all these things, He will then return. So your argument of Jesus getting it wrong in v32-35 is not valid, the generation that was alive at time of this statement saw the first part of Matthew 24 fulfilled, they saw the temple destroyed, they saw the abomination of desolation, and they saw the beginning of the signs for the end.

    Once again Alex, your argument against the Bible falls down. Please, if you are going to try and use the Bible as a support for your argument, make sure you get it in context.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No Josh, your blind idolatorous faith in a book overtakes your ability to act rationally.

    "Jesus says that one of the things people will see is the destruction of the temple, which was fulfilled"

    Yes, ONE of those things, but is it ALL as the context requires?

    "and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."

    So, were the early christians hated by ALL nations, how about the chinese and japanese, or the mayans? Of whom there was no contact, nor any knowledge.

    "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations"

    So, was the gospel preached in North America during the generation of Jesus's time? Perhaps you ought become a follower of Smith? Did the Inca ever receive this Gospel during that generation - no.

    "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

    So, if this great Tribulation happened in the generation of Jesus, then does that mean the extermination of the Jews was less terrible? Or the wars of the 20th century?

    "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken"

    Firstly, Jesus thinks the moon creates its own light - WRONG. Secondly, the stars are still up in the sky A LONG TIME AFTER THAT GENERATION IS ALL PASSED AWAY.

    I could go one further, but what is the point, your zealotry retards your ability to reason or even understand that these things you believe are false. Should you have an ounce of humility, you would renounce your faith and accept the truth: THERE IS NO GOD.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Come on Josh, even if we were to take your limited translation of seeing "all these things", I have still referred to two things which you consider should have been seen and objected to them. Will you not make a retort? Can we assume that you know that not "all nations" hated christians and that your religion was not preached to "all nations"?

    I still think your interpretation is faulty, though. But, even granting such interpretation - my objection stands. As for Acts, I see no reference to preaching to the Aboriginal people of Australia or to the Japanese. Are you insinuating that there is a different definition of "nations of the world"? This is certainly not clear. I mean, Acts 2 makes some reference to "living in the last days" but it seems thats been going on for 1900 years now - and I'm still not speaking in tongues.

    In any event, I think that the "signs" run all the way up to v30 given he states "they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven" that implies he is not "there/here" yet. If the sun darkening per v29 happens prior to him "coming" then it must be included in the catchall phrase "till all these things be fulfilled" in v34.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey Alex,

    Just a quick note to let you know I am planning to reply, but this week has become really busy, with planning for the wedding and preaching twice on Sunday. Give me a couple of days I will have something up. Thanks mate.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Umm, couple of days has been up, can you get back to me. I mean, I have seen the usual apologetics on this verse, but none of them are satisfactory (particularly regarding preaching to all nations and hatred of all nations, let alone the falling of the stars).

    Can you give me a brief update on your progress given this is "so easy".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sorry about not replying quicker Alex, I have been really busy and completely forgot about this post. Please accept my apologies.

    Yes, ONE of those things, but is it ALL as the context requires?

    You understand “all” to literally mean “all” all the time. One must understand words in the context in which they are given, in Scripture (and also in general talk today) when someone says “all” it doesn’t always mean a literal “all”.

    For instance, if I said “Alex, when you come out to Brisbane ALL you do is heckle.” That would be a true statement and true to the use of language. However, it isn’t “ALL” you do. When you come out and heckle you also, walk, talk, smoke etc. So, ‘all’ doesn’t always mean ‘all’. Context must determine usage. This is true with the English language and it is certainly true with the Koine Greek used for the New Testament.

    As for the use of “all these things” in Matthew 24:34 must be understood in the light of what has gone before. Verse 8, indicates that the signs are the beginning, not the completion. Everything in Matthew 24 up to verse 28 has been fulfilled or is being fulfilled in history. Now, some Christian theologians would disagree with this position and they place it all in the future. I however, think that Matthew 24 must be understood in the light of an historical hermeneutic.

    "and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."

    So, were the early christians hated by ALL nations, how about the chinese and japanese, or the mayans? Of whom there was no contact, nor any knowledge.


    Alex, you seem to be interpreting the Bible in the light of a 21st century understanding, this is not the way to read or interpret a book that was completed 2,000 years ago. To understand context one must look to “whom it was written”. To the first century Greco-Roman culture “all nations” was those within the known world, it did not include the nations outside of this (even though they knew people lived there).

    If one takes the time to look at history you would see that they early Christians were hated by all nations (remember who the “all nations” are). The persecution that arose in that first century was so intense that some scholars stated that the church was on the brink of annihilation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations"

    So, was the gospel preached in North America during the generation of Jesus's time? Perhaps you ought become a follower of Smith? Did the Inca ever receive this Gospel during that generation - no.


    Again, you miss the context, notice “shall be” is future tense, then after this has been completed it says the “end will come”. (Matthew 24:13). You have half quoted the verse, as the second part of the verse shows that this is a function that will span history, not just a generation. In future, if you are going to use a Bible verse to prove your case I suggest using the whole verse, and not just the part that fits your agenda.

    "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

    So, if this great Tribulation happened in the generation of Jesus, then does that mean the extermination of the Jews was less terrible? Or the wars of the 20th century?


    If one takes Matthew 24 has a historicist, we will say that we have had tribulations and there will be even more tribulations. This will continue until the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. The coming tribulation will be far greater than any thing that has gone before, that is why the Bible uses the term “Great Tribulation”. While the holocaust was terrible and the wars of the 20th century were horrendous, these things are mild to what is to come. The Bible goes on to talk about many being killed in the days immediately before the return of Christ.

    ReplyDelete

  15. "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken"

    Firstly, Jesus thinks the moon creates its own light - WRONG. Secondly, the stars are still up in the sky A LONG TIME AFTER THAT GENERATION IS ALL PASSED AWAY.


    Once again, we see that you have misinterpreted and redefined what Jesus said. Never in this verse does Jesus say the moon creates its own light. You interpret “give” as “create” this is not the case. The moon gives light by reflecting the light from the sun. So, Jesus isn’t incorrect, but rather your interpretation is.

    Also, never once did I say this verse occurred in the generation that Jesus was speaking to. This event has to do with the return of Christ at the close of the age.

    As for Acts, I see no reference to preaching to the Aboriginal people of Australia or to the Japanese. Are you insinuating that there is a different definition of "nations of the world"?

    Once again, you are working off the 21st century understanding of “all nations”. This must be understood in the light of first century interpretation, which stated that the “all nations” was the known world. Also, to the Jewish audience (to whom Matthew was written) “all nations” meant every nation outside of Israel.

    Acts 2:5 also indicates at the day of Pentecost the gospel was preached to people from “every nation”. This goes to show the first century understanding of “all nations”.

    Acts 2 makes some reference to "living in the last days" but it seems thats been going on for 1900 years now - and I'm still not speaking in tongues.

    The Bible indicates that the last days began at the ascension of Christ. So we have been living in the last days for the past 1900 years. This of course is something I as a historicist would have no problem stating. As for speaking in tongues, Firstly, that was for believers in the age of the apostles, and not all Christians spoke in tongues. Secondly, the gift of tongues ceased at the end of the apostolic age.

    You don’t speak in tongues and neither do I, that is because it isn’t around today. But, these arguments you presented still haven’t made your case.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Josh, your argument is fundamentally flawed.

    You may say that "all you do is heckle" but that I do other things AS WELL. That is, the all is complete within a larger set of things.

    Your argument is predicated upon the notion that "all these things will be seen" and your interpretation of "all nations" is that those things LESS others will occur which is contrary to the meaning of the words.

    Thus, your counter argument is simply wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just a quick query:

    What does all of this have to do with the question at hand. Or have I missed the conection? The only link I can find is Brad's rather tenuous response to the article and then side tracting into the coming of Christ.

    I would personally like to hear our atheistic fellow bloggers to give an philosophical account for their apparent hard atheism (Alex) or hard agnosticism (Brad - correct me if I'm wrong on that one mate). How do you account for your beliefs?

    I've seen both of you protest many times that poking holes in a theory (commonly evolution when talking with me) does not provide support for a position. Rather rational support must be given for the opposing point of view. What is your rational support for your position? This is one I am genuinely curious of and would like a full response to please.

    BTW we are still praying for you both and hope you are well. Especially Alex, I hope to see you one saturday soon mate. God Bless!

    ReplyDelete
  18. David, in response I point back to my argument about time and decision making as proving there can be no being that decided to create the universe, I will post it below.

    Does this mean that i know exactly how the universe came into being. Well, no, but I have some very good ideas. Nonetheless, as both Neitschze and Russell point out, we do not need to have all the answers to live our lives, or, to put it in simpler terms, sometimes it is better to not to claim to be able to give a complete answer and be thought a fool than to give an answer and remove all doubt.

    PS: I will respond to Josh's funny strawman soon.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As promised, the argument to prove god is not possible:

    Assume: the definition of God is an intelligent being who decides to begin the universe, including time.

    A decision is a transition from indifference to will. Such transition may only take place within time. Thus, we ask the question when did God make the decision to begin time, before, after or during the actual commencement of time:

    1. Since all decisions require time to already be in effect, God cannot make the decision until time has already commenced in operation and accordingly, he cannot make the decision before or during the actual commencement of time;

    2. Since time was already in existence after time commenced, God cannot be said to create it.

    Thus, the definition of God as presented CANNOT exist because, like the square triangle, the definition CANNOT be show to exist in reality and thus, there CANNOT be a God.

    ReplyDelete
  20. ...sometimes it is better to not to claim to be able to give a complete answer and be thought a fool than to give an answer and remove all doubt

    Quite. But I think the original quote is about opening your mouth...

    Alex I asked for a rational reasoned response for your world view. If this is all your world view stands on you are on tenuous ground.

    You have asked me to follow your logic, please follow mine.

    1. God is the creator of all things including time and space.

    2. The creator of something is by nature greater than the thing created.

    Therefore the God that we describe is able to operate independent of time and space. And to be blunt it is not surprising that you and I don't know how that works, given we were made by him also.

    You are playing a word game dependent on God being very much like you, when this is patently not the case. This is falacious logic Alex, please rethink it, it is a discredit to you.

    Hope you are enjoying the milder weather, God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I still would like a rational defence of the hard agnostic and atheistic world view. And no Alex your response is not rational nor logical.

    I know you are both quite busy but I really would like this one answered.

    ReplyDelete

Note: All comments that contain inappropriate or off-topic material will not be approved. Also, generally posts that contain links/URLs will not be approved.