| There are many kinds of narratives and organizing | | | | observers (although the Copenhagen interpretation of |
| principles. Science is driven by evidence gathered in | | | | Quantum Mechanics disputes this). Believed things are |
| experiments, and by the falsification of extant theories | | | | dependent on the existence of believers. |
| and their replacement with newer, asymptotically truer, | | | | We know that the Sun exists. We don't know that |
| ones. Other systems - religion, nationalism, paranoid | | | | God exists. We believe that God exists - but we don't |
| ideation, or art - are based on personal experiences | | | | and cannot know it, in the scientific sense of the word. |
| (faith, inspiration, paranoia, etc.). | | | | We can design experiments to falsify (prove wrong) |
| Experiential narratives can and do interact with | | | | the existence of electrons, quarks, and black holes |
| evidential narratives and vice versa. | | | | (and, thus, if all these experiments fail, prove that |
| For instance: belief in God inspires some scientists who | | | | electrons, quarks, and black holes exist). We can also |
| regard science as a method to "peek at God's cards" | | | | design experiments to prove that electrons, quarks, |
| and to get closer to Him. Another example: the pursuit | | | | and black holes exist. |
| of scientific endeavors enhances one's national pride | | | | But we cannot design even one experiment to falsify |
| and is motivated by it. Science is often corrupted in | | | | the existence of a God who is outside the minds of |
| order to support nationalistic and racist claims. | | | | believers (and, thus, if the experiment fails, prove that |
| The basic units of all narratives are known by their | | | | God exists "out there"). Additionally, we cannot design |
| effects on the environment. God, in this sense, is no | | | | even one experiment to prove that God exists outside |
| different from electrons, quarks, and black holes. All | | | | the minds of believers. |
| four constructs cannot be directly observed, but the | | | | What about the "argument from design"? The universe |
| fact of their existence is derived from their effects. | | | | is so complex and diverse that surely it entails the |
| Granted, God's effects are discernible only in the social | | | | existence of a supreme intelligence, the world's |
| and psychological (or psychopathological) realms. But | | | | designer and creator, known by some as "God". On |
| this observed constraint doesn't render Him less "real". | | | | the other hand, the world's richness and variety can be |
| The hypothesized existence of God parsimoniously | | | | fully accounted for using modern scientific theories |
| explains a myriad ostensibly unrelated phenomena and, | | | | such as evolution and the big bang. There is no need |
| therefore, conforms to the rules governing the | | | | to introduce God into the equations. |
| formulation of scientific theories. | | | | Still, it is possible that God is responsible for it all. The |
| The locus of God's hypothesized existence is, clearly | | | | problem is that we cannot design even one |
| and exclusively, in the minds of believers. But this again | | | | experiment to falsify this theory, that God created the |
| does not make Him less real. The contents of our | | | | Universe (and, thus, if the experiment fails, prove that |
| minds are as real as anything "out there". Actually, the | | | | God is, indeed, the world's originator). Additionally, we |
| very distinction between epistemology and ontology is | | | | cannot design even one experiment to prove that God |
| blurred. | | | | created the world. |
| But is God's existence "true" - or is He just a figment | | | | We can, however, design numerous experiments to |
| of our neediness and imagination? | | | | falsify the scientific theories that explain the creation of |
| Truth is the measure of the ability of our models to | | | | the Universe (and, thus, if these experiments fail, lend |
| describe phenomena and predict them. God's | | | | these theories substantial support). We can also design |
| existence (in people's minds) succeeds to do both. For | | | | experiments to prove the scientific theories that |
| instance, assuming that God exists allows us to predict | | | | explain the creation of the Universe. |
| many of the behaviors of people who profess to | | | | It does not mean that these theories are absolutely |
| believe in Him. The existence of God is, therefore, | | | | true and immutable. They are not. Our current scientific |
| undoubtedly true (in this formal and strict sense). | | | | theories are partly true and are bound to change with |
| But does God exist outside people's minds? Is He an | | | | new knowledge gained by experimentation. Our |
| objective entity, independent of what people may or | | | | current scientific theories will be replaced by newer, |
| may not think about Him? After all, if all sentient beings | | | | truer theories. But any and all future scientific theories |
| were to perish in a horrible calamity, the Sun would still | | | | will be falsifiable and testable. |
| be there, revolving as it has done from time | | | | Knowledge and belief are like oil and water. They don't |
| immemorial. | | | | mix. Knowledge doesn't lead to belief and belief does |
| If all sentient beings were to perish in a horrible | | | | not yield knowledge. Belief can yield conviction or |
| calamity, would God still exist? If all sentient beings, | | | | strongly-felt opinions. But belief cannot result in |
| including all humans, stop believing that there is God - | | | | knowledge. |
| would He survive this renunciation? Does God "out | | | | Still, both known things and believed things exist. The |
| there" inspire the belief in God in religious folks' minds? | | | | former exist "out there" and the latter "in our minds" |
| Known things are independent of the existence of | | | | and only there. But they are no less real for that. |