Introduction
Unfortunately/Fortunately for religion this is how science works. You have a theory. One uses a theory to predict something. Experiments are used to test the prediction. One observes the experiments and confirms or alters the theory (with alteration the cycle repeats). Sometimes you have to conduct a large number of different experiments before you can draw conclusions.
Background
What I and a number of other atheists/agnostics are doing is experimenting (at least this is what I have observed and conversed about with a few other atheist/agnostic friends). Rather than prove the nonexistence of deities, I try to prove their existence.
I write articles (experiments) to observe the outcome and confirm/alter theories about religion (and trust me if I can find evidence as to the existence of God I will be the first to jump on that ship). If religious followers fail to provide me with explanations regarding certain texts inspired by God, I have to revert to other experiments (ergo the many articles about religion on N24). Now for the weird part…
Existence of deities
If I fail numerous times to acquire experimental data (N24 comments) regarding the existence of a deity, is it because I have an incorrect experimental methodology? Probably yes. Maybe I should try to prove the non-existence of deities rather than their existence. This is a bit trickier. I can come up with credible theories. This is why I am an agnostic – it will always be a theory as I see it. I will discuss the theory part later on). But first back to proving the existence of a deity;
The other alternative, based on the lack of results indicating the existence of deities, most likely indicates that deities do not exist. If I set out to find sulphuric acid on the surface of the moon I must first come up with a theory as to the existence thereof on the moon’s surface. Let’s say a weird comet struck the moon recently. The theory is that the impact resulted in favourable conditions for sulphuric acid formation because previous experiments found hydrogen, sulphur and some oxides present on the comet (this sounds very crazy but bear with me as this is just an example).
I come up with different experiments to ascertain the presence of sulphuric acid on the moon. After years and numerous missions to the moon I come up empty handed. Does it automatically mean my measuring techniques were flawed or does it mean that sulphuric acid was simply never created due to the impact? I can say with certainty the latter is correct seeing that I would have ensured (and tested) my equipment was calibrated to detect sulphuric acid in trace amounts.
So if I fail to ascertain answers (experimental data) as to the existence of a certain deity, does it not automatically (with a high degree of credibility) infer that the deity is in fact not existent?
Non-Existence of deities
Now back to the theory part. If I come up with a theory as to the non-existence of deities, is it really worth something?
Look at Einstein’s THEORY of relativity. This is a weird concept and rather than let me inform you about the principle, just Google it and watch a short video. The theory of relativity plays a crucial role in navigation equipment. Yup those satellites above our heads are extremely sensitive and the machines must compensate for gravitational and velocity effects. What do they use to be so accurate…the answer is self-explanatory (i.e. a theory).
So a theory has enabled humans to drop bombs within a few feet of a target (JDAM – Joint Direct Attack Munitions or SDB – Small Diameter Bombs come to mind). Maybe not all of us are interested in that so rather say air travel. Air travel is safer for all due to global positioning systems. Airplanes can fly in zero visibility, yet have complete spatial awareness due to augmented reality. Complements of the theory of relativity… (yes something which we entrust our lives with!!!!).
Is this not what happens when we look at the “theory” of evolution (although evolution is no longer a theory but in fact truth). In that respect let us rather say the Big Bang theory. Has the Big Bang theory not enabled us to drop our bombs within inches of disproving the existence of deities?
Conclusion
This is the great thing about science. Any results are better than no results. Even if I do not set out to find sulphuric acid at the moon crater, it does not mean my research was in vain. Someone else in the future might conduct experiments (and refer to mine) as to ascertain why sulphuric acid did not form because a certain temperature was not sustained for a specific period… So if we can theorize with relative certainty that deities do not exist, someone in the future might just think of an apt way to prove it. Science progresses by means of stepping stones. Hopefully through my thoughts I can be a small amount of mortar that forms part of a bigger stepping stone…
Having discussed two methodologies on how to approach the question of whether deities exist or not I would like to invite theists and atheists to utter their opinions. This is such a cliché but can we keep the insults to a minimum for once. Just opinions as to whether you agree or not. No such things as in verse 123 Jan states this or atheists demanding proof. As we have seen it is difficult to show something exists. No person will ever be able to see an atom yet we base our whole lives around it (this is meant for atheists). No one has ever really seen a fairy yet you don’t believe in them (this is meant for the theists). So rather than chase our tails, comment on something worthwhile. I am here to expand my knowledge regarding both theism and atheism.
Lastly I did not write this to irritate the hell out of Christians. I highly doubt the Devil inspired me to write this seeing that I do not believe in him. All I merely want to convey is that you can have just as well defined values as Jesus himself without actually believing every word in the Bible. My apologies to those deeply offended by my articles. It is not my intention.