Big fan of Carl Sagan, he was like a father figure to me, I’m partially molded by him.
That said, something he used to say all the time really baffled me, still does:
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”
He said this when talking about aliens.
However: Sagan was a famous non believer.
How does this aphorism reconcile with the existence or non existence of a god?
If “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” does that apply to a god as well?
Is there a god even though there is no evidence of him/her/it?
In: 95
Thank you to all who responded.
I decided to ask this here bc I had a chat recently with a good friend about religion. He’s very religious, I’m a quasi atheist.
Anyway. We were talking about aliens (because of the ‘objects’ episode recently and then moved to religion)
He asked: do you believe in aliens? I said: I believe the universe is too big, hundreds of billions of galaxies, hundreds of billions of stars in this galaxy alone, it would be absurd that there’d be no intelligent life elsewhere. He said: but is there any proof? I said “no” there isn’t. But then I used Sagan’s famous quote, the subject of this post.
And he said: “but you don’t believe in god. And you always say the reason you don’t believe in him is because there isn’t evidence of his existence”
“Why can’t your Sagan quote be applied to god? There’s no evidence but he might exist.. if you’re open to the existence of aliens, why aren’t you open to the existence of god?”
Trying to eLH5, I attempted this: “bc it’s way likelier we’d find evidence of aliens, given the immense available sample (the universe) than finding it for a god (there is no sample to use for his/her possible existence other than a bunch of ppl killing each other in his/its name)” he remained unconvinced.
We changed subjects, we chugged a few more beers and that was that.. we’re as friendly as ever.
But I left in doubt & thought: he might have a point, I’ll head over to Reddit and ask for opinions.
Thank you to all who responded.
I decided to ask this here bc I had a chat recently with a good friend about religion. He’s very religious, I’m a quasi atheist.
Anyway. We were talking about aliens (because of the ‘objects’ episode recently and then moved to religion)
He asked: do you believe in aliens? I said: I believe the universe is too big, hundreds of billions of galaxies, hundreds of billions of stars in this galaxy alone, it would be absurd that there’d be no intelligent life elsewhere. He said: but is there any proof? I said “no” there isn’t. But then I used Sagan’s famous quote, the subject of this post.
And he said: “but you don’t believe in god. And you always say the reason you don’t believe in him is because there isn’t evidence of his existence”
“Why can’t your Sagan quote be applied to god? There’s no evidence but he might exist.. if you’re open to the existence of aliens, why aren’t you open to the existence of god?”
Trying to eLH5, I attempted this: “bc it’s way likelier we’d find evidence of aliens, given the immense available sample (the universe) than finding it for a god (there is no sample to use for his/her possible existence other than a bunch of ppl killing each other in his/its name)” he remained unconvinced.
We changed subjects, we chugged a few more beers and that was that.. we’re as friendly as ever.
But I left in doubt & thought: he might have a point, I’ll head over to Reddit and ask for opinions.
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
I never want to say that I can’t be wrong, but this sure seems clear to me. Crazy that the incorrect statement is so commonly accepted.
Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, true. But it sure as heck is evidence.
Check out this guy’s argument:
[http://kim.oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html](http://kim.oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html)
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
I never want to say that I can’t be wrong, but this sure seems clear to me. Crazy that the incorrect statement is so commonly accepted.
Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, true. But it sure as heck is evidence.
Check out this guy’s argument:
[http://kim.oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html](http://kim.oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html)
Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
I never want to say that I can’t be wrong, but this sure seems clear to me. Crazy that the incorrect statement is so commonly accepted.
Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, true. But it sure as heck is evidence.
Check out this guy’s argument:
[http://kim.oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html](http://kim.oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html)
because mysticism and science don’t exist.
there’s nothing mystical at all about the idea of aliens existing. *we* exist and the universe is enormous. it’s very very logical to surmise we aren’t alone.
on the other hand, there’s no logic whatsoever in saying that just because we can’t see a mystical being it could still exist. nothing in science and in our observations can even remotely be extended to draw the conclusion that a conscious entity could exist which could not only influence but even create a whole universe, as well as give attention to us or even a select group of us specifically. such lines of thinking have no place in scientific discussion
because mysticism and science don’t exist.
there’s nothing mystical at all about the idea of aliens existing. *we* exist and the universe is enormous. it’s very very logical to surmise we aren’t alone.
on the other hand, there’s no logic whatsoever in saying that just because we can’t see a mystical being it could still exist. nothing in science and in our observations can even remotely be extended to draw the conclusion that a conscious entity could exist which could not only influence but even create a whole universe, as well as give attention to us or even a select group of us specifically. such lines of thinking have no place in scientific discussion
Precisely the reason I’m an agnostic. There’s a chance that there is a God. It may be an incredibly unlikely chance; but there is a chance.
Precisely the reason I’m an agnostic. There’s a chance that there is a God. It may be an incredibly unlikely chance; but there is a chance.
Carl Sagan’s aphorism applies to any situation where evidence is lacking. It simply means that just because we don’t have evidence of something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. In the case of a god, this aphorism can be interpreted to mean that just because we don’t have evidence of a god doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist. Sagan was a non-believer, but he still acknowledged that it was possible for a god to exist even though there is no evidence to support it.
Latest Answers