Science vs. religion: How to evaluate evidence. Original title: What Did The Atheist Say To The Elephant?

This blog post is entitled “What Did The Atheist Say To The Elephant?”

Nevertheless this scholarly essay-like post should be tagged as belonging to the religion vs. science debate.

So the elephant (or elephant metaphor) isn’t the important thing here. Instead, it’s much more about evidence and how to interpret evidence of divine beings a.k.a. gods or Hidden Causal Agents (HCAs).

I’ve written a long comment to Charles Rogers’ blog post. And that comment I’m going to insert as an introduction and complement on my own blog.

Here is my comment almost in extenso:

In the introduction you wonder what an atheist would say after he had examined your elephant. You suggest that maybe the atheist would say: “There is no elephant.”

No, I don’t think so. If I were the atheist, I would instead say the following (fasten your safety belt because it will be a very long, and partly bumpy, ride):

Now I enter the podium to give my “TED Talk”:

Listen. folks! No one knows enough to prove – in an objective way – what this object (called, by some, an elephant) is we have in front of us.

Yet your claims of what some of you have found and concluded, by examination of the object, are of the absolute kind. You show no relativism at all in your theory buildings. That I would call a preposterous and presumptuous take on this special matter.

If your hypothesis (your theory building) can be shown to be wrong in some detail (or some details), then your hypothesis can’t be totally correct. And then it’s no longer an absolute hypothesis; It has become a relativistic one.

That is, for sure, not good for the credibility of a hypothesis claiming to represent the absolute TRUTH.

Therefore, if I can show you, maybe even convince you, by demonstrating in a theoretical way that some details your hypotheses rely on can’t be correct, then that in turn must mean – and the conclusion be – that I have invalidated your hypotheses and that you are obliged to elaborate more in order to face the challenges they don’t meet at the moment.

Wait, don’t leave me now. I’ve got more to tell you. Please, be seated again, don’t leave.

Let’s look at your hypotheses from yet another angle. If you agree that you are all damn sure just your interpretation of the object is the only correct one, then you also insist that only you are the one who has got the absolute TRUTH about this object we all have examined here today.

So, what does that implicate? If more than one of you insist just they have found the absolute TRUTH, of course all of you (claiming that you’ve found the absolute truth) can’t be right. N’est-ce pas (Isn’t it)?

Now I want to paraphraze Christopher Hitchens. He used to say this: Let’s suppose there are 3,000 religions in the world. If 2,999 of them are deemed false by you, would it not then be more honest if you admitted that this indicates that also the 3,000th religious faith probably is a false one?

Or why should just your religious faith be the one winning the top lottery prize?

Some of you (who claim you’ve found the absolute TRUTH) MUST, are bound to, be wrong, Only one can, by definition, win the top lottery prize. Either you win it – or you don’t. Tertium non datur (meaning there is no middle alternative in which more than one can win. But at the same time it’s possible that no one wins the top lottery prize because it’s possible the winning ticket remains in the tombola).

The conclusion must therefore be like this: Two existing religious claims of having found the absolute TRUTH can’t both be correct at the same time, i.e. either the claim X is right and claim Y is wrong – or claim X is wrong and claim Y is right. And, as said in the paragraph above, of course nothing prohibits that both claim X and claim Y are wrong at the same time.

Oh, I see that some of you seem to be ready to leave the room now. Please, don’t! Instead continue listening, folks, because I’ve got some more interesting things to say.

Have you heard of something called science – and scientific research?


Then you should know that science is not about claiming to have found any absolute TRUTH. All real science is relativistic. It conveys no absolute TRUTHS. That’s how science works.

Rather, it accumulates empirical evidence for or against various hypotheses. By doing this, science can show – even demonstrate – that some phenomena must be incompatible with the laws of physics (at least in the way we currently understand them).

And believe me, we understand those physical laws better and better.

This also shows the great advantage of science: It accumulates empirical evidence for or against various hypotheses.

So, If I can show you that religious (faith) ideas are incompatible with the laws of physics as we currently understand them today, by having accumulated empirical evidence for them during hundreds of years, then the probability is very high that they actually are correct, since they are supported by all this evidence.

Please notice I’m now talking of probabilities, not absoluteness. That’s how science works.

In fact we all rely on and have trust in probabilities.

For example. let’s say I invite you to play the lethal game of Russian roulette (just as an example, don’t try this at home) and offer you two different revolvers, one with one of its six chambers loaded with a round and the other six-shooter loaded with five rounds. Then I’m pretty sure you’ll choose to use the revolver with only one round in its six chambers. N’est-ce pas?

So probability is something we all have to deal with in our daily lives. And we rely on what probability tells us.

As a matter of fact, because scientific data are based on not only observations but also on experimental data, we should be allowed to regard science to be more reliable than religious faith, since such faith is based solely on subjective emotions and feelings, and we know today that emotion-based knowledge is very unreliable (just as memories and testimonies are).

In short, there is a constantly increasing amount of evidence supporting the view that those people who believe in gods (i.e. have a religious faith) probably have fallen prey to unreliable inner experiences/feelings, false memories, unreliable testimonies from others, different kinds of biases (like confirmation bias, wishful thinking and so on).

So religious faith and science are like two boxers in the boxing ring. In one corner you find a boxer who trusts the laws of physics (finding them very reliable because they have been tested so many times by so many different scientists and by such an enormous number of rigorous and high-precision experiments that they leave no room for religious beings driven by as yet undiscovered kinds of energy).

In in another corner of the boxing ring you find the religiously true believer, who says, “I trust my gut feelings and they tell me to believe there is a divine entity governing and/or guiding our lives.

Their boxing gloves contains arguments. These arguments are used to knock out the opponent.

The scientific boxer is supported by a coach who tells him: IF there still are undetected forms of energy “out there”, that must mean those new kinds of energy have to interact with the already known energy forms. But this – as you have seen – does not happen. Take the GPS as an example. Thanks to the GPS we can find out pretty exactly where we happen to be on the surface of Earth. If there were still undetected energy forms, they should interact with the GPS. But we can’t find any traces of such interactions.

And the coach continues: Spoon-bending is another good example. Spoons are made of atoms (exactly as all other objects are). Today’s physicists know exactly how much energy is available in a spoon. They also know the masses of the atoms (forming a spoon). They also know the kinetic energy of thermal motions within the metal the spoon is made of.

In short, and taken together, we can say without hesitating the least, that any new particles, or hidden energies, that might exist within a spoon would have been detected long ago in experiments made by physicists all over the world. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

The scientific boxer becomes dull of confidence that he’s going to win the boxing match.

The coach of the religiously true believer tells his client. Just believe in God. And if you also pray to God between the rounds, you can’t lose. God never desert His believers. And if He does, and you lose the boxing fight, then there is a meaning behind that godly decision, maybe to make you a humbler man or something like that.

Now I reach the end of my lecture.

Therefore I decide turn to KK, the medicine man of this RWT community/group, directly.

Dear, KK, My answer to your question how an atheist would describe the elephant-like object can be summarized in the follopwing way:

I believe the four well-known natural physical laws are correct. They have been validated in millions of experiments over the years.

These four natural physical laws leave no room for beliefs in divine entities.

So either the physical laws are correct (using that adjective in the scientific way). and the belief that we are surrounded or at least influenced by divine entities is wrong.

Or else all the accumulated knowledge that physics has gained and validated so far (during many centuries) must be thrown in the dust-bin and be considered more or less worthless.

It this were the case, then today’s physicists would advise us not to rely on the GPS. And the physicists should admit that, of course, spoons can be bended spontaneously, by themselves, and that, also of course, a broken window can be whole again (by reversing the time arrow) etc.

I myself find it much easier to believe in Santa Claus than to believe that all accumulated and validated data in the field of physics should be thrown in the dust-bin.

Concerning your elephant metaphor, KK, i tell you this: I didn’t get the opportunity to examine the whole elephant-liek object, neither did the other examinators get that opportunity. So I avoid expressing my thoughts of what constitutes the elephant-like object. And I find it impossible to make a complete and all-encompassing statement about your elephant-like object. No absolute TRUTHS can be said of that object.

Therefore I choose to criticize all the other examinators for trying to launch absolute explanations of what the object really is. By doing that, they are not honest people. Cf. the saying “Lying for Jesus”, Even the church fathers had a long tradition of lying for Jesus. See for example:;_ylt=A7x9UnwBIBVWwgIAURU_Ogx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByaGwzcXNvBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOARjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkAw–?qid=20090125072821AA3Fv7m

I hope you are satisfied with my answer, KK.

BTW, I recommend you to read this article: It’s about the plausible origins of supernatural/magical and religious beliefs. A very interesting article, also summarizing today’s knowledge of the matter.

Please, tell me your thoughts of what can be read in that article.

Charles Clanton Rogers



Six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant’s body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe. At the risk of offending someone, I suggest That Moses, Jesus, and other iconic giants describe a part of the elephant.[1]  What did the Atheist say after his examination? “There is no elephant”?

I wrote, “The Individual, the Family, the Tribe.”(2)

My friend and sparring…

View original post 1,788 more words


Filed under Atheism, Blogs I follow, Brain, Cosmology, Debate, Essays full of knowledge and wisdom, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Physics, Religion, Science, Science vs. pseudoscience, Theological bullshit

3 responses to “Science vs. religion: How to evaluate evidence. Original title: What Did The Atheist Say To The Elephant?

  1. Here’s a weird philosophical argument. Theism implies that the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is false. Conversely, the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics implies that theism is false. This is because if God exists, then the complete state of the universe is always being observed, so then the wave function of the universe is permanently collapsed and never evolves. However, the empirical hypothesis that the wave function never evolves has been empirically refuted. So, theism and the Copenhagen interpretation are incompatible.
    Credit~ David Builes, an undergraduate student at Duke university.

  2. Thank you so much for this interesting comment!

    As far as I understand it, the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics revolves a lot around the role of the observer.

    If you have an object that can either act like a particle ORr a wave, at what point does that object ‘decide’ what to be?

    In order to trying to explain that, I’m now going to quote some sentences from the following article: :

    The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics could be wrong about the need for a conscious act of observation. In fact, [today] most physicists consider this element to be unnecessary and they think that the collapse really just comes from interactions within the system itself. There are some problems with this approach, though, and so we can’t completely role out a potential role for the observer. (END OF QUOTE)

    Anyhow, let’s for a moment suppose – accept – that the wavefunction can collapse into a single state only by being measured. (Theists like that interpretation because that would make sense to the view that human beings are the crown of a divine creation process.)

    Does that mean that without an observer, the wavefunction can’t “decide” what way to choose (being a particle or a wave)?

    Cf. Schroedinger’s cat paradox, an experiment in which the “poor” cat is both dead and alive at the same time. Until someone, the observer, opens the box to check what’s valid (i.e. then he can – must – see the cat as either dead or alive, not both alternatives at the same time).

    The answer to that interesting question (= Must there be an observer to make the wavefunction collapse?) is: NO! Not necessarily.

    In fact, it IS possible that the universe, instead, could exist as a superposition of states.

    To strengthen this view, it’s time for another quote from the article I just linked to:

    [T]he universe could exist as a superposition of states, unfolding simultaneously in every possible permutation, until such a time when an observer springs up in one such possible universe. At the point the observer potentially exists, there is therefore an act of observation, and [then] the universe collapses into that state.

    This is essentially the argument of the Participatory Anthropic Principle, created by John Wheeler. In this scenario, there is no need for a God, because the observer (presumably humans, though it’s possible some other observers beat us to the punch) is itself the creator of the universe. (END OF QUOTE)

    But there is more to say. Here’s yet another quote from the article:

    [A] flaw in this line of reasoning is that it is usually tied in with the idea of an omniscient deity that is simultaneously aware of everything happening in the universe. God is very rarely depicted as having blind spots. In fact, if the deity’s observational acumen is fundamentally required for the creation of the universe, as the argument suggests, presumably he/she/it doesn’t let much slip by.

    And that poses a bit of a problem, because the only reason we know about the observer effect is because sometimes no observation is being made. This is clearly evident in the quantum double slit experiment. When a human makes an observation at the appropriate time, there is one result. When a human does not, there is a different result.

    However, if an omniscient God were observing things, then there would never be a “no observer” result to this experiment. The events would always unfold as if there were an observer. But instead we always get the results as we expect, so it seems that in this case the human observer is the only one that matters. (END OF QUOTE)

    Furthermore, the idea of a need of an observer to make the “reality” happen has spawned many woo wishful true believers to think that consciousness in itself has to be a property innate in the universe (which in turn opens up for the religious bullshit soul concept).

    To that I would propose the following refutation explanation. Maybe I’m wrong, but anyhow, here is my take on that.

    If all individual consciousnesses, roaming the earth, would shape reality, that process would end up in chaos. Each individual has his own intentions, meaning that not only life, but also matter (inanimate, lifeless objects) would have a more or less – yes nearly totally – unpredictable “behavior”. Why? Because of all these conflicting intentions.

    And the conclusion should be that our lives and environments are then bound to end up in total disorder (chaos) much faster than can be observed today throughot the universe.

    In fact, an increasing number of humans here on Earth should accelerate the total (“universal”) process of entropy in our universe, thereby hindering it from going on at the same speed as usual. (Life here on Earth may surely be correlated to the human population growth – i.e. life destroying processes show signs of accelerating the bigger the human population becomes – but the universe as a whole continues its total process of disorder (entropy) at a seemingly constant speed, unaffected by what we humans do or do not do.

    What I mean is that all these intentions of conscious life forms – caused by an innate (amount of) consciousness in the universe (ALL life forms, not only humans, would likely have a certain share thereof) – should accelerate also the total/combined universal process of entropy that follows from the second law of thermodynamics.

    There are, as far as I know, no signs of that being the case.

    As you know, in thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged. Which means entropy is a measure of the amount of disorder (= chaos) in every single moment.

    The second law of thermodynamics states that in every natural thermodynamic process the SUM of the entropies of all participating bodies is increasing. If the entropy of system A decreases, then entropy must increase somewhere else in the universe, for instance in system B. Or vice versa.

    Furthermore, because the entropy of an isolated system never can decrease other than temporarily, such a system is bound to spontaneously proceed towards thermodynamic equilibrium (= the configuration with maximum entropy, i.e. total chaos/disorder).

    Therefore it is (more than) fair to ask: From what – or from whom – did the consciousness of the universe receive this self-annihilating poison pill? From a God? Then that God must be utterly wicked, an evil being much worse than the Devil in all three Abrahamic religions.

  3. I just wanted to say this reminded me of Dr.Charles.
    He will be miss.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s