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
Carl Sagan is being “philosophical” here in that he’s discussing topics that you would find in a Philosophy class and not a Physics class. I guess this branch of philosophy is called metaphysics so there is the link.
A lot of Cosmologists get philosophical quite a bit as they are seeking to understand the origins of the universe and the laws that govern it so they end up asking questions like “what is the universe” and “where did it all come from”. They especially get like this when they are narrating television documentaries aimed at a more popular audience.
The branches of metaphysics you want to look into are Ontology (the nature of being) and epistemology (the nature of knowledge). Philosophers for centuries debated how to know if God exists if there is no direct evidence.
So there is the concept of “proving a negative” and the “absence of evidence” which each have their own Wikipedia pages. You might be able to prove that a jug contains no milk because there is an absence of evidence that there is any milk in that jug. But you can’t prove that I have never committed a murder simply because there is no evidence of me doing such a thing. When is it OK and when is it not? You can spend years studying that in college.
Adding to what others have stated, there is a distinct difference between the existence of other life making their way through the universe just like us, and an all-seeing, all-knowing being with the power to directly influence your life at any time they see fit.
Aliens may or may not exist, but if so they would be several light-years away at the closest, which would take a staggering amount of power to broadcast their position in the universe (if they would even want to… read the *Three Body Problem*, it addresses this in more detail. Excellent series.) Additionally, they could have existed millions of years in the past but have since died out, or they could simply be a proto lifeform that evolves intelligence a million years from now, by which time we will all be dust.
God (speaking of the Christian god out of familiarity) has no such limitations, but despite making his presence known thousands of years ago chooses not only to hide, but also hide any evidence that the universe is dependent upon a creator.
Adding to what others have stated, there is a distinct difference between the existence of other life making their way through the universe just like us, and an all-seeing, all-knowing being with the power to directly influence your life at any time they see fit.
Aliens may or may not exist, but if so they would be several light-years away at the closest, which would take a staggering amount of power to broadcast their position in the universe (if they would even want to… read the *Three Body Problem*, it addresses this in more detail. Excellent series.) Additionally, they could have existed millions of years in the past but have since died out, or they could simply be a proto lifeform that evolves intelligence a million years from now, by which time we will all be dust.
God (speaking of the Christian god out of familiarity) has no such limitations, but despite making his presence known thousands of years ago chooses not only to hide, but also hide any evidence that the universe is dependent upon a creator.
Adding to what others have stated, there is a distinct difference between the existence of other life making their way through the universe just like us, and an all-seeing, all-knowing being with the power to directly influence your life at any time they see fit.
Aliens may or may not exist, but if so they would be several light-years away at the closest, which would take a staggering amount of power to broadcast their position in the universe (if they would even want to… read the *Three Body Problem*, it addresses this in more detail. Excellent series.) Additionally, they could have existed millions of years in the past but have since died out, or they could simply be a proto lifeform that evolves intelligence a million years from now, by which time we will all be dust.
God (speaking of the Christian god out of familiarity) has no such limitations, but despite making his presence known thousands of years ago chooses not only to hide, but also hide any evidence that the universe is dependent upon a creator.
Something could exist without us knowing it exists. Atheists and agnostics understand this. So, for the most part they are quite willing to accept that they cannot prove the non-existence of God. God might exist even though the non-believers don’t believe it or don’t see evidence of it.
This admission frustrates some believers, who would prefer that non-believers claim to know, or to be able to prove that God doesn’t exist, so the believers can then say “aha! you can’t prove that, so your nonbelief is a kind of faith”.
Something could exist without us knowing it exists. Atheists and agnostics understand this. So, for the most part they are quite willing to accept that they cannot prove the non-existence of God. God might exist even though the non-believers don’t believe it or don’t see evidence of it.
This admission frustrates some believers, who would prefer that non-believers claim to know, or to be able to prove that God doesn’t exist, so the believers can then say “aha! you can’t prove that, so your nonbelief is a kind of faith”.
“I can no more disprove the existence of God, than i can disprove that mushrooms are alien space ships sent here to spy on is.”
~Dawkins, paraphrased
You’re right, the absence of evidence of God’s existence isn’t proof of His non-existence. But consider that the former clause is absence of evidence of (what’s probably contextually) a Christian God, whose son is Jesus, whose words were written down in the Bible. In contrast, the latter clause could literally apply to any (and no) deity. The discrepancy in scope is staggering, when you apply this aphorism to God.
I suggest you look at the phrase to mean “nothing can categorically constitute evidence of absence,” and then you’ll appreciate just how much the burden of proof is on believers, and not agnostics/atheists. Less poetic, though. :/
Carl Sagan was agnostic, but many people try to redefine atheist as anybody that does not believe in god when an atheist is anybody that believes there is no god. So often he gets lumped in w/ atheist.
Here’s an actual quote from Sagan explaining his views.
>I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?
I couldn’t find it but I know he’s also talked about how if you define the laws of physics as being “god” then he believes in god, but he says something along the lines of it not being spiritually satisfying.
Carl Sagan was agnostic, but many people try to redefine atheist as anybody that does not believe in god when an atheist is anybody that believes there is no god. So often he gets lumped in w/ atheist.
Here’s an actual quote from Sagan explaining his views.
>I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?
I couldn’t find it but I know he’s also talked about how if you define the laws of physics as being “god” then he believes in god, but he says something along the lines of it not being spiritually satisfying.
Good answers, all of them, so thank you.
But none have been simple enough, as in, eLI5:
I ask again:
“If absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” can be applied to aliens (i:e no proof yet, but there might be) why can’t it be applied to a god? (There’s no proof yet of a god, but there might be) I’m ok with this logic, I’m a dolt. But Sagan? He was emphatic about there not being a god.
Latest Answers