Saturday, February 2, 2013

A Priori Assumptions

These are assumptions that already have it's conclusion beforehand. The very common example of this is " Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you are an atheist, why you do affirm that God does not exist?". I encountered this early on in my life in high school when a professor uttered this formulation: "you cannot deny something which does not exist". So, at first glance; seems my unbelief is unjustified and in fact, I held on to this formulation as basis for believing in a god.

However, this is a very good example of a priori assumptions meaning that the existence of a god is already assumed when it should be the other way around: assume first a neutral stance, a god does or does not exist. Then, you go about proving your deity's existence.

Let's use this analogy:

Suppose you want to discover a cure for cancer. You don't start with the assumption that there exists a cure for cancer. You start by assuming there doesn't exist a cure then you search for answers that will lead you to said cure. Imagine the laughter you'd get if you were to defend your research protocol with the a priori assumption that you already have a cure for cancer. 

 
I post about this because I encountered this argument in the Filipino Freethinkers Facebook page. A theist, a Theology student, posted it and I had the pleasure of refuting his biological justification, he used the existence of the genetic code to argue for the existence of an intelligent god; so I had cause to jump in. And I was a bit disappointed with the refutation he gave me: original sin caused those genetic imperfections meaning because Adam and Eve did it and by extension the bible is literal. So imagine hard science facts, I used the existence of introns and exons, genetic diseases and reverse transcriptase to argue against an intelligent god, while he used Adam and Eve. Can you imagine if he was to defend a scientific thesis? 


Anyway, I mention that incident because such people, theists, always cheat on their arguments. They always assume beforehand that their god exists and instead of resorting to hard facts like Science they always use long philosophical ramblings or their holy book. 


So if someone wants to prove a god's existence, it's very simple: provide evidence. However, I will tell you that these things DO NOT count as evidence:

1. the bible (do you really want to go there? With your god condoning slavery, genocides, rape, misogyny and torture)
2. subjective experiences like miracles and apparitions (I mean it should be something objective meaning I, personally, can go out and check it INDEPENDENT of you. Heck, use this as evidence and I'll think there's something wrong with your pre-frontal cortex.)

And please, do not even think of shifting the burden of proof on me. The one who proposes the claim (God exists) must be the one who proves it. 

4 comments:

  1. Hey there. I find how you write pretty interesting. I'm also a thiest, a Christian to be exact, not Roman Catholic. To be honest, I do find many practicing Christians to be quite hypocritical. But I find Catholics not only hypocritical, but somehow content to wade shallowly in their own beliefs. It's a shame they don't try to figure out why they believe what they believe in, and are content to listen to what the pope and the priests tell them. Anyway, I graduated with a degree in biopsychology in UBC and have taken my fair share of bio and chem courses.

    The thing is though..."a priori" is actually a term used in philosophy, not in sciences. Not that I know much about philosophy. :) I admit I do not, because I didn't take formal education in that area. Although, I did take an interest in Alvin Platinga, most notably for his reformed epistemology argument, specifically that belief in God can be warranted as a 'properly basic belief' (a philosophical term also, which simply means that the belief needs no justification or evidence to be valid). He has a name in the philosophical community and is one of the best in his field, but don't follow his scientific arguments for a God. I heard it's weak, and the scientific community doesn't really give it any credit. That isn't his area of expertise, you see. But philosophy is. His argument is that it is not 'illogical' to believe in the existence of God even when there is no evidence or justification for His existence. His argument is supposedly brilliant and philosophically sound, although you need to be pretty knowledgeable in philosophy to understand it. Lol. You should check his work, wiki him or something. But not so you could be convinced or anything. It's good to see what's out there on the other side. Stimulates critical thinking. :)

    But anyway, as a science undergrad at UBC, my 'faith' as you may call it, was really challenged under the bombardment of the scientific community. For a few years I have struggled with the concept of belief. Now, I still believe, simply because I am choosing to believe it's true. And I have realized that no amount of argument or evidence from either side can actually make a person sincerely believe.

    I have been taught by leading research professors in the world, and have observed the limits of their own knowledge. No matter how much of an expert they are in the research community, it is only limited to the field they are in. And not just that, in the sub-field they practice. Like in medicine, it is ridiculous to consult a cardiologist in regards to eye problems, because that is not their specialty. No matter how knowledgeable they are, they will likely arrive at a wrong prognosis. In the same way, a very smart person who believes or disbelieves in a God can very likely be wrong in their assumptions. Just because a person is educated and intelligent, does not mean they are right.

    Many people in science hold disbelief in the concept of a God, that's true. It is partly because of the critical thinking process that is inherent in science, but it is also because that is what they choose to believe in the absence of sufficient evidence. However, you will find there are also a fair bit of scientific people who believe in the existence of 'a' god. Even Einstein believed in God, albeit a detached version. As an aside, this is my favorite line from him, "God doesn't play dice."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh hi thanks for dropping by...wow I have readers. Sorry for the late reply; don't regularly check my blog because I was busy studying (medical school is a different animal altogether). I only had time to check this because we're already in summer break.

      I used "a priori" just for the sake of sounding smart; thanks for pointing it was a Philosophy term (didn't know that). What irritates me is how some theists already assume the existence of a deity without first establishing his/her/its existence independent of their argument.

      And anyway, I have no issues with fellow scientists believing in a deity just as long as it doesn't cause harm to a)themselves, b)others and c)society. I mean I rather label myself as a "skeptic" towards god-claims. I'm like a "5" on Richard Dawkin's scale of theistic probability anyway so it's not like I'm a hard-core atheist.

      Delete
  2. Anyway, I went over the word limit so I'm putting another comment. :) I apologize for having digressed. What I really wanted to share is that... philosophy and science are two different fields of thought. How they begin to investigate and to build an argument is also different. And although it is very tempting to use scientific facts to argue for the existence of God (or lack thereof), it has been pretty much hammered into me all throughout my science undergrad that the goal of science is not to *prove* something is true.

    The goal of science is to disprove something repeatedly, in different angles and ways. And if it cannot be disproved, then eureka, you have stumbled into gold. That is what the null hypothesis is all about. One can never prove a null hypothesis. One either rejects it or fails to reject it. You are probably familiar with this process, being a science student yourself.

    So this is what I mean: the null hypothesis would be that God does not exist. And the alternative hypothesis is that God exists. Given that science inevitably sets it up in this manner, one cannot "prove" that God does not exist (null). One can only try to disprove that God does not exist. So really, if one is to undertake such metaphysical matters in the name of science, the goal would actually be to try to *disprove* He doesn't exist, rather than to prove He doesn't. Get it? Try to wrap your mind around that. :) That is why science as a field does not dabble in metaphysical issues. As such, it is not feasible to try to disprove God's nonexistence. Where would you start? If you fail to reject the null, does that mean He does not exist, or how you set up the process failed to take into account other factors that could actually disprove His non-existence (aka prove His existence)?

    You might have heard of the Intelligent Design movement, which is basically trying to prove God exists through science. As a whole, the scientific community does not hold much respect for it and believes it to be quack science. I think that is partly the reason. Science was not established for metaphysical things like that. They are going beyond what science is meant for. Although personally, I think it's interesting. At least they are trying, right? Hahaha.

    But that aside...I do admit that majority of the scientific community do doubt the existence of a God. But these are primarily personal stances, driven by reason and logic perhaps... but definitely not by science itself. Science is simply used as a 'supposedly' objective way of backing up their beliefs. But I think it's safe to say that many intellectuals use science and facts the way many emotional believers use their subjective religious/supernatural experiences as the basis for what's real.

    That is why for me, I have given up trying to find the perfect reason for believing. There is no such thing. I believe because I believe it's true. And there are a thousand reasons for me to try to show its true. But there are, just as well, a thousand reasons for someone else trying to show is not. :) Really, in the end, it all comes down to what Jesus asked His disciples, "Do you believe?" And if a person doesn't, then people should let it be as it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh the "Intelligent Design" movement really has no scientific basis. If they're going to resort to that then they're going to have to provide sufficient reason why our bodies are so ineptly designed.

      "And if a person doesn't, then people should let it be as it is."

      Yes, that is actually what I subscribe to; I like what you wrote. But try pointing that out to fellow natural-born Filipinos.

      Delete