Before the advent of the scientific method, religion made sense of the Universe. It provided moral guidance to its adherents. But it also provided answers for the curious: about the origins of the Universe and of Man, through the story of Genesis and the creation story of Adam and Eve. These stories were meant to make sense of the Universe and their place in it, but also to strike awe in the believer of the majesty and splendor of their creator.

But with the arrival of science these supernatural phenomena began to be explained away as natural, comprehensible occurrences in the Universe. Scripture began to lose its foothold as the inaccuracies and fallacies it held in its folds began to be questioned and countered. Science began to provide the intellectual tools to explain and unveil the Universe. It made for a better framework and methodology to gain and expand knowledge and understanding, shunning authority and unwavering obedience, replacing it with questioning, experimentation, empiricism, and observation.

It is tempting to altogether dismiss religion as fallacious, based on this demystification of the Universe. However, these are not the only reasons for obviating religion from one’s life. Moral inconsistencies such as how a good and just God could allow pain, misery, and evil to exist in the Universe, or the disdain towards theological exceptionalism are other reasons for which people disregard religion. Such stances are categorized under humanistic atheism, where the argumentation against the existence of God stem from the social sciences and the humanities. Another strand is that of scientific atheism, which bases its argumentation on the natural sciences. [1]

Many contemporary atheists who could be categorized under the label of New Atheism adhere to scientific atheism. With people such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens lending their voices against ‘unreason’, vociferous attacks are made against the irrational and delusional beliefs of religious people, how religion primarily breeds intolerance and extremist behavior that poses a risk to the lives of people around the world, and how the world would be a better, more rational place with religion eradicated. New Atheists tend to make claims with a high degree of certitude, assuming an epistemic high ground due to adhering to rationalism. There is however a major logical fallacy that exists in their apparently rational proposition, ‘There is no God’.

Knowing The Knowable, Inferring The Inferable

The categorization into humanistic and scientific atheism is a logical separation to create a distinction between the metaphysical and material argumentations used to posit the nonexistence of God. These arguments have existed for centuries, although scientific atheism gained traction in more recently history, post Enlightenment. Due to its reasoning based on empirical evidence it lent even stronger credibility to the claims of atheism, as it purportedly refuted the material claims of scripture about the Universe.

For all the vastness and intricacies of the Universe what is most fascinating - and also downright perplexing if you come to think of it - is how we, insignificant specks in the infinity of spacetime, have been able to comprehend it using our intellect. It is a true marvel, and kudos goes to the numerous sages, intellectuals, philosophers, scientists, and thinkers who have made us a tad bit more aware. What must also be conceded, however, is that we have but finite knowledge of the Universe. Even though we continue to learn more about the Universe as time progresses, we do not know everything.

But how much do we know? Is it possible to put a number to the total attained knowledge about the Universe? Can we ascribe a percentage to how much we know versus how much we do not?

But why is having a total even necessary? Is it not enough that any explications made by religion, about subjects such as the origin of the Universe and of Man, have been refuted through scientific unravellings such as the Big Bang, evolution, and the inner workings of the brain? Why bother with epistemic accounting?

To understand why it is necessary, we need to delve into the basis of rationality: the linchpin of the scientific method. In order to make any inference there are two major methods of reasoning: deduction and induction.

Deduction moves from a general statement, such as:

All planets in the Solar System orbit around the Sun

and applies it to a particular premise

Mars is a planet in the Solar System

to arrive at the conclusion:

Mars orbits the Sun.

The base statement is a truth claim used to ascertain the validity of particular premises.

Induction, or inductive reasoning, on the other hand moves from particular observations and facts to formulate a general proposition. Tossing a coin a hundred times and always getting heads could make one infer that the next toss will also land heads. If the sample size is small, say 5 tosses, then we would feel less certain of the next toss turning up heads. However if after a hundred, a thousand, a million tosses and all of them landing heads we would have more certitude that whenever the coin is tossed it lands heads. We could even further infer something about the object itself, such as:

The coin is loaded.
The coin is double-headed.

Without knowing the nature of the coin we would be unable to conclude with certainty any of the above propositions. It would require further probing. If the coin turns out not biased (not loaded or double-headed) then perhaps we could infer the coin tosser is extremely lucky!

However, just because the unbiased coin continues to land heads each time, even after a million tosses, does not mean it will never land tails. The overly large sample size of observations would make one infer it will continue to land heads in the future too. But, although landing heads is most likely true, it is not necessarily true. Essentially the propositions inferred through induction have an epistemic uncertainty attached to them. In fact, inductive reasoning is not a claim of truth, but instead a claim of probability: how likely is a proposition to be true, or not.

All I Know Is, We Know Nothing

The proposition, ‘There is no God’ is an inductive inference. It is supported by different theories, such as the origin of the Universe from the Big Bang, and the evolution of humans from chimpanzees. These essentially provide proof refuting the theological versions of the same phenomena. But technically this only warrants the proposition to be plausible.

If we were to concede the total attained knowledge we have about the Universe proves there is no God (which it does not necessarily) then the question that logically follows is, how much do we not know? Is there potentially still knowledge to be attained that could provide a hint or insight into the existence of God? Let us dredge along in a thought experiment: say we were able to peg a number to the total attained knowledge about the Universe. Let us assume it at 40%, and none of the knowledge supports an argument for the existence of God. However, with the remaining 60% of knowledge still unaccounted for it would be an inductive leap to make the proposition, ‘There is no God’.

But, alas, such epistemic accounting is not available, and perhaps might never be attainable. How would we ever know how much we already know? And how much is remaining to be discovered? Therefore due to the epistemic uncertainty that revolves around the proposition, ‘There is no God’ it is fair to claim that it is not a rationally sound argument, but a plausible one. It does not warrant absolute certainty of the nonexistence of God, nor even an improbability of the existence of God. Anyone claiming it to be truth or having certainty in it is thus taking a leap of faith.

This conclusion is not a dismissal of scientific atheism, or the arguments put forward by proponents of New Atheism. It is to point out the logical fallacy that exists in their propositions, and the intellectual dishonesty pervading the rationality of its adherents. Such blind faith in the scientific method - no pun intended - and its presumed superiority to other forms of knowledge lends a smugness which is unwarranted, inappropriate, and quite frankly dogmatic. Scientific atheism does traipse into the realm of the irrational. It involves a leap of faith. Just because its knowledge is built on reason does not warrant every claim it puts forth is equally rational. Therefore, at least it would be fair that its adherents have the intellectual integrity to accept it and reconsider their self righteous, dogmatic attitude.

References

[1] Hovdkinn, E. (2016, October 19). New Atheism in Social Media: More than entertaining mockery? Retrieved from http://religiongoingpublic.com/archive/2016/new-atheism-in-social-media-more-than-entertaining-mockery

Faith in Atheism

Knowing The Knowable, Inferring The Inferable

All I Know Is, We Know Nothing

References

Further Readings

Related Posts

Irfan A.