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
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”.
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.
“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. :/
Adding to this quote, I remember reading that Sagan said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
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.
“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. :/
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.
This also speaks to the levels of evidence required to prove something. Life exists. We are it. This is “easy” to prove (regardless of how difficult it is to define life).
Whereas the supernatural, by definition, may not be present in the reality we experience, and is even MORE difficult to prove.
So something that SHOULD be there, but is missing, can’t be decisively ruled out. While something that ISN’T there can’t be ruled out, but nothing is the expected result.
Adding to this quote, I remember reading that Sagan said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Adding to this quote, I remember reading that Sagan said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Latest Answers