No Empirical proof for Empiricism
Proving or disproving the existence of God is a predominantly rationalistic endeavor, not an empirical one, rendering modern atheism’s positive belief in God’s non-existence a non-sequitur. It is always an error to limit truth-seeking to empiricism alone when aiming for a rationalistic conclusion. Modern atheism, in its insistence upon using empiricism as an all-purpose tool, does so in pursuit of the exact question that transcends it as a discipline. When empiricism fails to render a conclusive answer, as it must, atheists often adopt a blind-faith stance, abandoning any semblance of self-regulatory skepticism by grasping at an answer from the rationalistic discipline, even though the rationalistic process was not entered upon in the first place. If rationalism is engaged instead, even badly, the atheist will find himself working against overwhelming evidence of God’s existence, evidence which places the backbreaking ‘burden of proof’ squarely upon his shoulders.
With empiricism revealed as the wrong method for this question of God’s existence or non-existence, and rationality given its due, holding onto one’s positive belief in God’s non-existence is a pure act of the will – one of blind “faith”, in defiance of logic and reason, which is not of the same rational value, or a result of a rigorous rational endeavor as that kind of faith possessed by the deist. A truly honest rationalistic process reflects, not only the facts, but the integrity of the truth seeker, who must ultimately either follow these facts where they lead or refuse to yield in a manner that expressly compromises the virtues and purpose which he hoped to legitimize by embarking upon his search in the first place.
When it comes down to it, proving the existence of God is not so much about presenting a set of empirical evidence as it is about demonstrating His existence by way of argument, such as the contingency, the cosmological, or the ontological arguments. Since God is not a physical or corporeal object within the universe but rather “being itself”, which cannot be quantitatively analyzed, seeking material “evidence” does a disservice to the whole endeavor of discovering the possibility of God’s existence. Rationalistic arguments are methods of inquiry that try to explain the qualities of God, and through logical inference, his relation to the world as well. These arguments do so in such a way that lays the burden of “dis-proof” on the skeptic and follows through by teasing out the logical conclusion.
The tradition in Western civilization up until the 20th century is that the wider populace has held that God exists. While tradition is not proof, it does put the ball in the court of the one trying to overturn what might be considered the “precedent”. Since the Enlightenment, however, this scenario has been slowly changing. I do not blame the Enlightenment for seemingly undermining religion. However, it has played a pivotal role in changing how we view presuppositions generally. The methods developed in this period tend to start by deconstructing things that would previously either be taken for granted, or at least given the benefit of the doubt. The issue with this approach lies, not in the rational desire to analyze the processes and “materials” which make up a given article, but rather in presupposing that sound methods could naturally stem from a metaphysical lack of structure in reason’s makeup, given that the supposed ideal—according to Hume—in such a scenario starts from what is considered a “blank slate”.
This, again, is not to denigrate the Enlightenment or other similar periods, which are rightly to be considered golden ages for numerous reasons and commended for producing magnificent methods of critical thinking. As with all epochs, however, they are not without their own deficiencies. In their most radical expressions, they produced forms of thought such as the method of doubt or extreme skepticism, which have their place within certain scientific/rationalistic contexts, but, these exaggerated practices, coupled with an emphasis on empirical proof as their litmus test, have led to the abandonment of belief in God with what could very well be considered insufficient reason (e.g. using extreme skepticism to disprove God’s existence should also disprove the reasoning by which one could come presume to have come to that conclusion concretely).
This abandonment of theism, more widely, is understandable once one recognizes the nature of these extreme methods being taken to their extreme ends. These methods and subsequent “conclusions” also pose a problem, though, since God can be argued for, from looking at the world of empirical evidence, despite the fact that He will not, per se, be found there. It is much more common that the rationalistic forms of argument proposed will point to His existence—but not “prove” it directly.
The issue now faced today though, due to the permeation of a lopsided rationalism and/or scientism, is that people seem unable to accept less than empirical proof for the existence of God, which is ironic considering that they will accept the words of a significant other who says “I love you” even despite that statement not being strictly provable. How much easier it should be to accept a God who is often described as love itself (ex. “God is Love” – 1 John 4:8). Another recent concern is that philosophy, or in this case, philosophy of religion,—which is the strain of philosophy used to argue about God—has lost much of its credibility and fallen out of use. People are hearing more and more frequently that philosophy is a “dead” area of study, in which ancient points are rehashed and endlessly debated. This could not be further from the truth. As science and the humanities develop and grow, so does philosophy, which incorporates the logic of what is derived from said developments and the ways in which these things all intertwine and interact. Although many do not consider philosophy a worthwhile endeavor at all, it remains the study of why things matter.
Epistomology That Works
There is an old trope: a scientist asks a philosopher why philosophy matters. The philosopher responds by redirecting the question to the scientist and asks him why science matters. As the scientist begins to answer, the philosopher interrupts him and says, “and now we’re doing philosophy!”
In discovering the existence of God, we have to let ourselves be led mainly by the intellect and critical thinking, and not let ourselves be cheated by those who make the category error of trying to box God into a world of empirical data, when God is exactly outside of the world. What is said by many philosophers and theologians (theo-logos those who study the ‘science’ or logic of God) needs to be realized—that God is completely distinct from anything we could try to use to classify Him as, as if He were within the human arena. Aquinas describes God as “Totalliter Aliter”—totally other, or “to be to be,” and therefore outside of our capacity to fully grasp (Aquinas).
For this reason, Kant considered certain forms of knowledge to be unattainable. Here, must be offered a critique of Kant’s hypothesis. Kant seemed to believe that certain forms of knowledge were of the gnostic variety and therefore remain secret and unintelligible. If that is his position truly, it would seem almost necessary to have to diverge from it. The concept of unintelligible knowledge is a contradiction in terms; however it is true that human limitations place a good deal of difficulty on belief in these higher truths. For example, some knowledge may be practically unattainable. In other words, these truths are not supra-rational but instead, are super-rational, and can be met on the far side of reason, since they are much broader than we humans, can fully grasp. This means maintaining an open mind and not holding to strict defining lines, but rather accepting that our terms will likely be insufficient.
Fortunately, it is possible at least to begin to describe aspects of God that are comprehensible through human faculties. God himself is a pure intelligence almost by definition, since He is God (in any accurate depiction of Him, at least; no flying spaghetti monsters will be considered in this discussion). If He were sub-optimally intelligent, then He would not be infinite, and therefore, again, not God. As the most-famous philosopher, Descartes, would seem to hint, this intelligence is one of the basic building blocks, if not THE basic building block for understanding reality—“I think therefore I am.” It would be no different with God’s simplicity of essence. His intelligence is his being. They are at once distinct but also inseparable and identical.
Therefore, the main purpose of this essay is to show how and why it is reasonable to believe in God, and why we should accept rational arguments without strictly empirical proofs for God’s existence. It will aim to do this by showing how religious philosophy has developed, firstly and hence its contemporary relevance. Then, it will explain why it is a simple category error on the part of empiricists (and others who hold predominantly to materialism or scientism) to place the burden of strict empirical proof on a purely spiritual, yet intelligible, being, to prove his material “existence”. The kind of existence and intelligence which comprises a deistic or theistic God is intelligence that is reflected in his creation, but not always perceived or able to be used as verifiable evidence. In like manner, this burden of proof is not reasonably placed, either, on those who believe in this definition of God.
Figures Who Figured it Out
To examine these arguments well, it seems best to begin by probing the history of philosophy, which, in Western culture, dates back to the early Greeks and Latins. As humans are beings bound by space and time (at least apparently), examining this field in a linear fashion seems helpful. One notable philosopher who would affirm this is Hegel. Hegel thought that the best way to understand philosophy was to understand the way that it unfolded through time in relation to cultures especially, and that only once the nitty-gritty of history was well established could a broad overview of philosophy, that was also accurate and meaningful, arise. And while some people say that a broad overview may color philosophy in a fashion that may be less inclusive of outlying or less mainstream philosophies, it nevertheless makes sense to start off by viewing philosophy, first, as a “bloc”. As Oscar Wilde puts it so succinctly, “it’s only shallow people who do not judge by appearances.” The tone of the vast majority of philosophy can tell us something important (Scruton).
The figures who laid the bedrock for this area of study are those figures such as Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras. Each had a different approach, some being more skeptical, others more empirical, and still others concerned with areas like ethics and the forms of knowledge. Aristotle and Plato, in particular, seem the most influential in setting the course for Western civilization. Eastern thinkers like Confucius and great religious thinkers like the Buddha set much of the foundation for the Eastern parts of the world, and while many of these philosophies overlap, they each have distinctive features.
Fast forward to the Medieval period and you have figures like Saint Thomas Aquinas, with his famous Summa Theologica, which was as much a philosophical as a theological treatise—or rather, collection of treatises. He was probably the most influential at conceiving of the arguments for God’s existence, giving at least five demonstrations. How atheism could have surfaced in such a major way after such a towering figure as Aquinas is one of the world’s great mysteries, since atheism is a positive affirmation of the non-existence of God (which Aquinas would immediately list as a fallacy, since to say that “being itself” is non-existent is self-contradictory), while agnosticism seems a much more reasonable position, given that the burden of proof rests on the atheist but not the agnostic. The agnostic frees himself from that impossible burden by remaining open. Perhaps some burden of proof, in certain scenarios, may also rest on the deist or theist, but at least the believer has positive formulas that demonstrate God’s existence, whereas the atheist has an almost insurmountable task of making positive formulations for the non-existence of God and is mostly only able to argue against His presupposition.
To be clear, arguing against His presupposition is not the same thing as arguing for His non-existence, the latter of which is a much harder case to make, since first, one would have to define the God whose non-existence is being arguing for. It seems that that is a much more difficult task, given our definition of God as totally transcendent (as well as being a counterproductive task from the polemic point of view). If one can manage to get past this stumbling block somehow, then follows the task of warding off every argument that might even possibly demonstrate His existence, since a firm atheistic worldview requires strict dis-proof—which, considering the centuries of literature on this subject seems, practically speaking, impossible.
If one manages to intellectually overcome all of these hurdles, then he is doing an anomalous job, but if he has not managed to do this, then, he really cannot consider himself a true atheist with a firm disbelief. Rather, he is an agnostic until he is more positively and completely, in the full sense of the word, unconvinced—unless, that is of course, he is willing to take a leap of skepticism to get to that point, which, considering the circumstances, seems both ironic, less rational, and riskier than a leap of faith to get to the contrary position. (As a side note, I think it is the case that people prefer to consider themselves atheists in order to settle more comfortably into their non-belief when they are leaning towards His nonexistence, and to consider themselves agnostic when they are closer to being middle-of-the-road or undecided but not antagonistic toward the pro-God arguments. However, this is not the most intellectually honest position, regardless of what their preference might be. It seems that striving for simplicity wins out over logic in this case.) It also occurs to me that this decision to label oneself as an atheist rather than an agnostic is simply a category error (which often goes unexamined or unchallenged).
If one wants to consider himself a true atheist, but does not have a positive disbelief, and with pending pro-God arguments left unanswered and ignored—that is, if one cares enough to be intellectually honest as well as thorough—then the only option left is to admit at least the possibility of an intelligent deity, which, again, places one in the agnostic camp. Without getting too much into the pro-con arguments, it seems like positive atheism simply requires a larger level of “faith” than the believer with his faith requires. True atheism as a system presupposes the fact that one considers oneself irrefutably unconvinced, whereas deism/theism only requires simple belief “the size of a mustard seed” (Luke 17: 5-6). This is not to say that one has “proof” of God’s existence, but only simply, that one has taken a rational leap of faith based on the positive arguments—of which there are many—in accord with reason, and has thus given assent to a proposition that has (to put it in legal terms) good standing. It is a leap which, if taken, 17th century philosopher, Blaise Pascal, would say is well rewarded, but if not taken, to put it lightly, would leave one most bitterly disappointed.
John Henry Cardinal Newman was a 19th century theologian/philosopher, and arguably the most elegant and illustrious writer in modern times—hailed by James Joyce as his own superior in his grasp of English Prose. When Joyce was praised for being “the most accomplished writer of English”, Joyce responded, saying, “nobody has ever written English prose that can be compared with that of a prince of the only true Church”, referring to Newman. Cardinal Newman, in his earlier days, wrote a treatise called An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. This essay of his described the many ways in which we subscribe to beliefs in ways that are sometimes irrational, or impractical, but more than that, without the aid of evidence and at the same time paradoxically in a “reasonable” manner, all things considered. The mind naturally synthesizes staggeringly large amounts of data every single day, and comes to rational conclusions based on deductive, inductive, and even abductive reasoning with such immediacy and accuracy that almost no concerted effort is required on the part of the individual. It is an in-born heuristic tool both useful to humans and necessary for our survival. Newman notes this phenomenon and terms it, the “illative sense.”
For instance, if someone receives a call while at work from a number they do not know, and the speaker identifies himself as a police officer, who is reporting that their house has been broken into and mentions their address, they will immediately trust that A. he is in fact a police officer, and B. that he is telling the truth, without any positive proof of either of these things. (Telling us our address is not proof except that whoever has our phone number also knows our address.) This is a process we engage with, day in and day out. We make compromises with reason, when experience has shown us that trust can be used to fill in the gaps where evidence may lack. Why would belief in God be a bridge too far in this regard, when in fact, we practice this behavior already so regularly and unquestioningly (and with empirically verifiable phenomenon at that). How much more useful might this method be, and how much more rationally could it be analyzed and subsequently employed, in ways which are neither intellectually good nor bad, but simply as an extension of the aforementioned heuristic tool, or illative sense, used to probe different suppositions tentatively, with regard to positing something that is much more existentially significant, yet not empirically provable—God’s “presence”?’
The Solution
Rationalism is the road by which to approach the question of the existence of God by a close examination of attributes that can be logically ascertained through a philosophical process of questioning and reasoning. Empiricism, conversely, is not the same road and should not be applied when trying to prove or disprove God’s existence because an intellectually honest and comprehensive conception of God defines Him, as far as He can be defined, as “Being Itself” and therefore as totally transcendent of the natural order, which proceeds from Him, rather than He from it. Empiricism, which seeks to prove the existence of a transcendent Being, will always come up short, as it is strictly limited to the study of the natural order. Positive belief in the non-existence of God, therefore, cannot be achieved through an empirical method. God’s existence (or non-existence) is, instead, derived from the domain of the rational.
Far too often, hopefully by hapless error and not through intellectual dishonesty, seekers ‘jump the rails’ from empiricism to rationalism, attempting to use an empirical method to come to a rationalistic conclusion. While empiricism can serve the rationalistic process to a point, such a leap from the empirical method to a rational conclusion is akin to trying to use flour, butter, sugar, and eggs to build a computer. It does not work. When using rationalism, which allows one to approach (if not fully grasp) infinite, fully transcendent, intelligent Being, or “Being Itself,” the evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming. When one finally can admit that empiricism is off the table, proving God’s non-existence through rationalism represents, to understate the point, an unbearable burden. In light of the rational evidence, then, we have a new question: to believe or not to believe?
Since it has been established that it now comes down to whether or not we should believe that any of the reasons given are of any importance, or indeed whether they matter, as Kierkegaard might recommend, we also have permission to consult not just the head, but the heart on this question.
Josef Pieper, arguably one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, schooled in the thought of the Greeks as well as St. Thomas, would say that Love is the simplest reality of which there is no more basic explanation than the word itself (Pieper). This word—Love—is what most people would say gives fundamental meaning to their lives. To try to qualify the word, love, is also to complicate it, but simply put, what it means is to say, “It is good that you exist”. The God of the Bible says just this in the book of Genesis. The God who is described as love in 1 John 4:8 – (God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.) says something to the effect of, “It is good that you exist!” saying essentially, “I love you”—“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good” (Gen 1:31).
We have shown that the question of why philosophy is important is an analytic question, since the question being asked, itself, justifies whatever answer could be given. The question that follows is whether we will allow these seemingly self-evident truths to resonate with us and fill us with something similar to what we might aptly label a “justification” for our existence, which is, in many cases, what we all desperately seek, knowingly or unknowingly. This, seems to be the real query here, and it is up to each individual to give a response to it. Do we believe in “unprovable love”, or will we continue seeking for an empirically verifiable answer to a question that is really not first posed by the rational head, but by the sometimes irrational or, you could say, super-rational heart? [i]
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Pub. 1485 A.D.
Jesus, The Gospel of Luke, The Bible, ~100 A.D.
Moses, Genesis, The Bible, ~1400 B.C.
Newman, John H. An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, University of Notre Dame Press,
1932
Pascal, Blaise. Pensees, 1672
Pieper, Josef. An Anthology, Ignatius Press, 1989
Scruton, Roger. An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Philosophy, Penguin Books, 1999
Zebedee, St. John. The Gospel of John, The Bible, 90 A.D.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In