If you have at all paid attention to any metaphysical of religious debate then you are aware of the impossibilities of disproving certain elements of arguments of their nature. Specifically, that it is impossible to disprove, or prove for that matter, the existence of God. That is of course the most obvious one. There are some less obvious ones such as the duality of existence, the soul, aliens, etc. etc.
Why are these things impossible to prove or disprove? Because they do not follow from experience or any thing that can be empirically investigated by science. For example, you could think that proof of evolution would disprove the existence of God, but you would be wrong. It could be, and this is a metaphysical argument, that God started, or created evolution. Its similar to saying that God created the world and it’s properties, then let it unfold as it would. As far as the soul, how could you disprove this? Its mysteriously invisible, exist somewhere in or around you, and there is no instrumentation for which we could become acquainted with its functions; it is by definition, not material. The alien problem is similar. They are allegedly so elusive with technology beyond our intellect; they roam about in such a vast space that mathematically their existence is somewhat reasonable.(the probabilities of alien life I would like to talk about in a future article, its extremely entertaining).
So really, just by the nature of these statements they become impossible to disprove. The only things that are actually provable are, that first come to mind, are tautologies, logical argument, and empirical evidence (science). Any thing else we attempt to prove comes with the burden of proving a negation. That is, the greatest burden of argumentation is Falsification.
So with this in mind I would like to offer up a story that was originally an article by Anthony Flew. And Flew’s article, in the form of a parable, was originally a tale told by John Wisdom in an article called ”Gods.” It’s about how continuous attempts to justify a belief eventually become absurd despite the impossibility of that particular belief to be definitively confirmed as true or false. (at least this was my take on it): The title has been changed to something I find more fitting.
The Death By A Thousand Qualifications
Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” The other disagrees, “There is no gardener.” So they pitch their tent and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. “But perhaps he is an invisible gardener.” So they set up a barbed wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with blood hounds (For they remember how H.G. Wells’ “The Invisible Man” could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, he must be invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves.” At last the Skeptic despairs, “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”
So what has taken place in this parable? Well for sure, the Believer has attempted, by one qualification after another, to explain certain phenomenon or features of the world. Every time that he must account for lack of empirical evidence that seems to suggest the lack of a gardener, a new qualification is introduced that, according to him, could explain the mysterious situation. The gardener is invisible, has no smell, intangible, elusive, etc. etc. But as the skeptic wisely points out, with every new qualification, the Believers intitial idea of a gardener become something congruent to an imaginary character. Additionally, it becomes complex and almost completely incomprehensible. The problem though, as I pointed out earlier, is that by the nature of these qualifications, it is actually impossible to prove that such a gardener (invisible, intangible, scentless) does not exist. How could you?
The moral here rest on the idea that some of our beliefs are similarly defended in the way that the Believer’s is defended. No I can’t disprove them, but I can be rational enough to realize that simplicity is usually the answer to many questions. In this case simplicity would maybe be that the garden is just a natural phenomenon. Simple, easy, understandable. The Believer’s hypothesis of the gardener, by undergoing so many strange and bewildering qualifications, thus becomes a victim of inches.
Consider those beliefs that you have, and how much you must continue to qualify them in order to maintain them. Be careful that they do not fall victim of the death by a thousand qualifications
No comments:
Post a Comment