Rational Arguments Against theism: Why Absence of Evidence May Be Evidence of Absence

Introduction

One of the most compelling aspects of the argument against theism is the absence of empirical evidence for the existence of any of the multitude of gods and goddesses that are often described in religious mythologies. This article delves into the various philosophical, logical, and scientific arguments against theism, and why the lack of evidence might actually be compelling evidence for its absence.

Understanding Theism

The concept of theism varies widely across different religious traditions. For instance, the Abrahamic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, depict a personal and interventionist God who created the cosmos and humanity, and whose commands and will guide human behavior. In these contexts, the divine is perceived as a strict, transcendent being who judicially dispenses rewards and punishments based on human actions and beliefs. Conversely, in Hindu philosophy, articulated through the Sanskrit phrase "Tat tvam asi" (That thou art), the divine is an intrinsic part of the underlying reality, and the focus is on dharma or the natural order of life, rather than specific commandments or beliefs.

The Absence of Evidence

The primary argument against theism is the absence of any concrete, verifiable evidence for the existence of gods. This deficit of empirical data undermines the foundational claim of many religious beliefs. Unlike scientific hypotheses that can be tested through observation and experimentation, religious propositions often lack a means of verification. The gods worshipped in religious texts are typically not subject to the same standards of evidence as natural phenomena are in scientific inquiry.

Scientific Inquiry and theism

Science relies on empirical evidence and observable data to construct and refine theories. For many natural laws, we have a profound understanding through scientific methods and experimentation. In contrast, theistic explanations, which often appeal to supernatural causes, do not offer the same predictive power. While science continues to unravel the mysteries of the universe, providing explanations for how phenomena occur, theism, at its core, struggles to explain the 'why' behind existence.

Arendt and the Prime Mover Argument

The Prime Mover argument, a cornerstone of theistic philosophy, suggests the existence of a first cause for all the observed phenomena in the universe. However, this concept lacks predictive power and does not answer the deep philosophical questions about the ultimate nature of reality. M.C. Escher's famous drawing, "Drawing Hands," exemplifies this infinite regress, where one wonders if the creator created the creator, and so on. Such reflections reveal an inherent circularity in the idea of a Prime Mover, as it does not provide a clear, final cause.

The God Hypothesis: Attractive but Unfounded

The "God hypothesis" for the origin of the universe is attractive, particularly in light of our inability to fully explain certain aspects of existence through current scientific understanding. However, the apparent simplicity of theism, which often appears as a first cause or a single explanatory principle, is itself a philosophical creation. Our craving for ultimate explanations is met by religious ideas that propose a divine or supernatural agent. Yet, this approach is often seen as a leap of faith, and it is crucial to recognize that such hypotheses are not grounded in empirical evidence but rather in a desire for resolution of existential questions.

Evidence and the Existence of "Holy" Scriptures

The existence of holy scriptures does not serve as irrefutable evidence for the existence of any gods. These texts, in and of themselves, are subject to interpretation and can be open to different meanings. The subjective nature of religious texts means they do not provide objective, verifiable truths. Moreover, articulating one's own conjectures about the nature of a divine entity, such as the Franco-Felinic God, illustrates the diversity of belief systems and the limits of empirical evidence in such domains.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the absence of empirical evidence for the existence of gods undermines the very foundation of theistic beliefs. While the God hypothesis offers a certain comfort or sense of purpose, it falls short in providing coherent, verifiable explanations for the observed universe. The cyclical nature of theistic arguments, such as those involving infinite regress, reinforce the idea that alternative, non-theistic explanations might be more satisfactory. As modern science continues to explore the universe, the roles of religion and philosophy in understanding existence are continually re-evaluated.