In a recent heated discussion on me becoming an atheist, I
was articulating the thin line between agnosticism and atheism. Though I was emphasizing
the importance of knowing scientific methodology and some theories like
evolution, big bang, quantum, relativity and so on, a deeper contemplation made
me revisit the very idea of God in the light of scientific methodology. When I
was agnostic for at least a decade, my main argument was how somebody could
deny the existence of God, or anything that is beyond our empirical knowledge,
for that matter. This is a write-up to put forth my own answer (that made me an
atheist) to the question, with minimal philosophical jargons. Therefore, I'm
not here to address the first and major bunch of people called theists (unfortunately
hopelessly), but the second lot namely agnostics.
Let me start by understanding couple of terms here. God is a
torn word and idea by now. However, to find a common ground, except Indian
philosophy (or spirituality), the term God can be defined roughly as the
supreme being with attributes like omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent
and with functions like creator, sustainer, destroyer, judge. Hope this
definition is self-sufficient and well-understood. However, in the eastern
thought, it's a very vague and gray idea, that has been interpreted differently
and mostly contradictorily. As far as I understand, the main stream of thought
in Indian subcontinent interprets it as a process of self-realization, not an
entity in itself, mainly because the pursuit of Brahman leads to one's self
(aham brahmasmi). Therefore, it's an epistemological way of life, thus needing
no mention in this regard.
The other term I would explore is falsifiability. Nevertheless,
it needs a background. After the dark ages of religious and philosophical
dogmas, the light of the Renaissance started flashing in the 12th century. With
the work of his predecessors like Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, the
English reformer Francis Bacon could lay the foundation of scientific thinking.
However, the scientific explosion of today has started with the formal
methodology devised by Karl Popper. And, for me, one of the greatest
discoveries is his scientific methodology of falsification. According to this,
any statement, hypothesis, or theory is scientifically valid, only when it has
falsifiability (or is falsifiable). But it need not be true or moral. That
means, validity is important to be scientific. Bertrand Russell had popularized
this concept with his teapot. In a nutshell, any valid discussion starts only
from a falsifiable statement, hypothesis, or theory.
Though Russell's teapot is famous and self-sufficient, let
me explain this with my own (mimicked) example. Suppose I say, "I've a
travel machine in my backyards using which I go to moon for morning walk
everyday, but at the same time nobody else can see or experience it.". In
this case, anybody talking about this to me is merely waste of their time.
Because it's simply not falsifiable. That means, my assertion could not be
proven wrong in anyway. On the contrary, the statement that "All swans are
white" is absolutely valid. Because this belief can be very well falsified
by showing one non-white swan and it happened in the history. Ok, let's come to
the point. Is God falsifiable?
The answer completely depends on the definition of God. But
unfortunately, we don’t have any unanimous definition in this regard. However,
as I previously took the luxury of categorizing the two schools of thought, we
can see the oriental approach of self evolution and western dogma of
creationism. In the former, the definition of God is very vague and invalid
with the principle of falsifiability. I know this is not satisfactory and calls
for debate. However, the scope of the writing doesn't allow me to elaborate the
vague idea. Now, what about the later approach? As far as the Semitic God is
concerned, it's more concrete. But is it valid? If I reiterate the definition,
it is the supreme being that is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent
and that creates, sustains, destroys, judges. If I justify with the definition
of God, then it's valid for me. When I'm able to show a creator who is neither
omnipotent nor omniscient nor omnibenevolent, it's falsified and therefore it's
falsifiable, and thus valid statement too.
However, being a valid definition, is it a true statement or
theory? The answer to this question made me an atheist. There are already
thousands of reasons (by different people) why this theory of God is falsified.
Let me reiterate few reasons here. A God who allows evil/imperfection in his
creation is neither omnibenevolent nor omnipotent. Please don't come with the argument
of Thomas Aquinas like "evil is not a presence, but absence of good".
It's very old unrealistic understanding of reality. We know people born of
inabilities (though you may call it 'with different abilities'). The famous
laryngeal nerve of the Giraffe by Richard Dawkins proves that the creator
should not be omniscient. To falsify the said definition, I can go on and on.
Again, that's not the point of discussion.
All I'm up to is two-folded. Are you talking about a God who
is falsifiable? If not, keep mum (be a happy agnostic!). If yes, see if you are
able to falsify or not. If you are not able to, come to me. I'll convert you to
an atheist (hopefully not over confidence!). Secondly, when somebody comes to
you on any healthy discussion, validate if the statement, hypothesis, or theory
is falsifiable. If not, avoid such discussion (if not that person). The method
of falsifiability saves your day (or life). As Ludwig Wittgenstein says,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."