No Evidence for God, Therefore No God: Part III

No Evidence for God, Therefore No God: Part III

In the initial installment of this discussion (Sacerdotus, 2012), we critiqued the atheistic assertion that the absence of empirical evidence for God constitutes proof of God’s nonexistence. We identified this reasoning as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, a logical fallacy, and highlighted the epistemic limitations of empirical science in addressing metaphysical questions. This second part advances the critique by exploring the philosophical inadequacy of the "no evidence" claim, evaluating alternative epistemic frameworks, and presenting a robust cumulative case for theism through rational, scientific, and experiential arguments. We contend that the absence of empirical evidence does not preclude God’s existence and that a convergence of philosophical and scientific considerations renders theism a rationally defensible position.

1. The Epistemological Fallacy of Equating Absence with Nonexistence

The assertion that a lack of empirical evidence equates to evidence of absence is philosophically untenable. As philosopher Carl Hempel (1965) noted, the absence of observational data cannot definitively negate the existence of entities or phenomena beyond the scope of empirical inquiry. Historical examples illustrate this principle: prior to 1846, no direct evidence existed for Neptune, yet its gravitational perturbations on Uranus warranted its inference. Similarly, the Higgs boson, theorized in 1964, remained undetected until 2012, despite its theoretical necessity. These cases underscore that existence claims are not contingent solely on empirical verification.

In the context of theism, the expectation of empirical evidence for a non-material, transcendent being constitutes a category error. God, as conceived in classical theism, is not a physical entity subject to sensory detection but a necessary, immaterial cause of contingent reality (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 2, a. 3). To demand empirical proof is to misapply the tools of natural science to metaphysical questions, akin to using a spectrometer to evaluate ethical norms. Thus, the absence of empirical evidence does not entail God’s nonexistence but reflects the methodological boundaries of science.

2. Epistemic Pluralism: Beyond Empirical Reductionism

Empiricism, while a powerful tool for investigating the natural world, is not the sole arbiter of truth. The original post noted science’s inability to address questions of ultimate purpose or meaning. Here, we expand this critique by advocating for epistemic pluralism, which recognizes multiple valid modes of knowledge:

• Philosophical Reasoning: Deductive and inductive arguments for God’s existence, such as the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments, rely on logical inference rather than sensory data. The kalam cosmological argument, for instance, posits that the universe’s temporal beginning necessitates a timeless, uncaused cause (Craig, 2008). Similarly, Anselm’s ontological argument (Proslogion, ch. 2) contends that a maximally great being must exist in reality, as existence is a perfection. These arguments, while debated, provide rational grounds for theism independent of empirical verification.
• Moral Ontology: The existence of objective moral values and duties poses a challenge to naturalistic frameworks. As philosopher J.L. Mackie (1977) conceded, objective morality is difficult to reconcile with a purely materialist worldview. The moral argument, advanced by scholars like C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, 1943), posits that a transcendent moral lawgiver best explains the universal apprehension of moral obligations, such as the wrongness of gratuitous suffering.
• Religious Experience: Personal and communal experiences of the divine, documented across cultures and epochs, carry epistemic weight. Philosopher William Alston (1991) argues that religious experiences, when coherent and consistent, possess prima facie justification analogous to sensory perception. The global prevalence of such experiences, from mystical encounters to transformative conversions, resists reduction to psychological or sociological causes without substantive counterevidence.
• Argument from Desire: C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, 1943) and philosopher Peter Kreeft (1989) articulate the argument from desire, which observes that humans possess an innate longing for transcendent meaning, beauty, and fulfillment. Unlike natural desires (e.g., hunger), which correspond to satisfiable objects (e.g., food), this desire lacks a naturalistic correlate. Theism posits that this longing reflects a purposeful orientation toward a transcendent reality—God.

These epistemic avenues complement empirical science, offering a holistic framework for evaluating theistic claims. To privilege empiricism exclusively is to adopt scientism, a self-defeating stance, as the claim “only empirical evidence yields truth” is itself non-empirical and thus philosophically incoherent.

3. A Cumulative Case for Theism: Converging Lines of Evidence

Rather than relying on a single argument, theism is best defended through a cumulative case, wherein multiple lines of evidence converge to support a coherent metaphysical framework. The following considerations, grounded in contemporary science and philosophy, bolster the case for God’s existence:

• Cosmological Fine-Tuning: The physical constants governing the universe—e.g., the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force—are calibrated within extraordinarily narrow ranges to permit life. Physicist Luke Barnes (2012) calculates that the probability of such fine-tuning occurring by chance is astronomically low. The fine-tuning argument, defended by scholars like Robin Collins (2012), suggests that an intelligent, purposeful design better explains this precision than chance or speculative multiverse hypotheses, which lack empirical corroboration.
• The Universe’s Origin: The standard cosmological model, supported by cosmic microwave background radiation and galactic redshift, indicates a finite universe originating approximately 13.8 billion years ago (Planck Collaboration, 2018). This temporal boundary raises the question of causation. A timeless, immaterial, and immensely powerful cause—consistent with the theistic conception of God—provides a metaphysically coherent explanation, whereas naturalistic accounts struggle to address the origin of spacetime itself.
• The Emergence of Consciousness: The phenomenon of subjective consciousness remains a profound challenge to materialist paradigms. Neuroscientific models, while mapping neural correlates, fail to explain the qualitative nature of experience (qualia) or the apparent freedom of rational deliberation. Philosopher David Chalmers (1996) argues that consciousness suggests a non-reductive ontology, compatible with theistic accounts of the mind as reflecting a divine rational archetype.
• The Coherence of Theistic Metaphysics: Theism offers a unified explanatory framework that accounts for the universe’s existence, order, and intelligibility. As philosopher Richard Swinburne (2004) contends, theism is simpler and more comprehensive than naturalistic alternatives, which often invoke ad hoc hypotheses (e.g., multiverses) to explain contingent phenomena. The principle of parsimony favors a single, necessary being over an infinite regress of contingent causes.
• Historical and Cultural Testimony: The persistence of theistic belief across diverse civilizations, coupled with historical claims of divine revelation (e.g., the Resurrection of Jesus in Christian tradition), provides indirect evidence for theism. While not empirically verifiable, the historical reliability of certain religious texts, such as the Gospels, and the rapid spread of Christianity despite persecution, warrant serious consideration (Bauckham, 2006).

These arguments, individually suggestive, collectively form a robust case for theism, rendering it a rationally preferable hypothesis to naturalistic atheism.

4. Critiquing Naturalistic Counterarguments

Naturalistic objections to theism often rely on the assumption that all phenomena are explicable within a materialist framework. However, this position faces significant challenges:

• The Problem of Ultimate Explanation: Naturalism struggles to account for the existence of the universe itself. As philosopher Leibniz famously asked, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Theistic metaphysics, positing a necessary being, provides a logically coherent answer, whereas naturalistic accounts risk an infinite regress or an arbitrary termination of explanation.
• The Multiverse Hypothesis: To counter fine-tuning, some naturalists propose a multiverse of infinite universes with varying constants. Yet, as physicist Paul Davies (2007) notes, the multiverse lacks empirical testability and introduces metaphysical complexities rivaling those of theism. It also fails to address the origin of the multiverse itself.
• The Limits of Scientism: The assertion that only scientific methods yield knowledge is philosophically self-refuting, as it relies on non-scientific assumptions. Scientism cannot dismiss metaphysical arguments without engaging them philosophically, yet many naturalists evade such engagement by redefining knowledge in strictly empirical terms.

5. Theistic Belief as Rational and Warranted

Theistic belief need not be construed as irrational or fideistic. The Catholic intellectual tradition, exemplified by thinkers like Augustine, Aquinas, and Newman, maintains that faith and reason are mutually reinforcing. Contemporary philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (2000) argue that belief in God is “properly basic,” warranted by rational reflection and experience, even absent conclusive proof. The cumulative case for theism—spanning cosmology, consciousness, morality, and human longing—provides sufficient grounds for rational assent.

Moreover, theism invites intellectual humility, acknowledging the limits of human cognition in apprehending ultimate reality. As philosopher John Cottingham (2005) observes, theistic belief aligns with humanity’s existential quest for meaning, offering a framework that integrates empirical, rational, and experiential dimensions of existence.

Conclusion

The atheistic claim that the absence of empirical evidence disproves God’s existence is philosophically flawed, resting on an overreliance on empiricism and a misunderstanding of metaphysical inquiry. By embracing epistemic pluralism, we uncover multiple rational pathways—philosophical arguments, scientific inferences, moral ontology, religious experience, and human desire—that converge on theism as a coherent and compelling hypothesis. The cumulative case, bolstered by contemporary scholarship, suggests that the universe’s order, origin, and intelligibility are best explained by a purposeful, transcendent intelligence. Far from settling the question, the absence of empirical evidence invites rigorous philosophical engagement, challenging both theist and atheist to grapple with the profound mysteries of existence.

---

References

• Alston, W. P. (1991). Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience. Cornell University Press.
• Barnes, L. A. (2012). The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29(4), 529–564.
• Bauckham, R. (2006). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Eerdmans.
• Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.
• Collins, R. (2012). The teleological argument. In W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. 202–281). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Cottingham, J. (2005). The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value. Cambridge University Press.
• Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (3rd ed.). Crossway.
• Davies, P. (2007). Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. Houghton Mifflin.
• Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. Free Press.
• Kreeft, P. (1989). Three Philosophies of Life. Ignatius Press.
• Lewis, C. S. (1943). Mere Christianity. Geoffrey Bles.
• Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin.
• Planck Collaboration. (2018). Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6.
• Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press.
• Swinburne, R. (2004). The Existence of God (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

---