TAM quoted Jerry Coyne as asking “what conceivable observation about the universe could convince you that God does not exist?” I responded by attempting to draw out the principles lying behind Coyne’s question. And I came up with the following:
(a) If there are no conceivable observations of the universe that could convince you that X doesn’t exist, then it is silly to believe that X does exist.
(b) If there are no conceivable observations of the universe that could convince you that p is false, then it is silly to believe that p is true.
I then provided three examples of things that people believe exist which they do not accept based on observations of the universe: (P1) other universes, (P2) abstract objects, (P3) a form of the good. But surely belief in these things is not “silly” and so we should reject (a) and (b).
Robert demurs. He likes (a) and (b). And he defended them by arguing of (P1), (P2) and (P3) that
“I could believe them AND conceive of observations in the universe that would convince me I was wrong. If there is nothing in the universe that could convince me I was wrong about P, then there really is something askew in my epistemology if I won’t recognize that and re-calibrate my beliefs about P.”
There are many issues here including the following: (i) how does one define an “observation” and (ii) what is meant by “convince” (e.g. rationally persuade)? But rather than further the discussion on (P1-P3) I want to keep the main thing the main thing and that is the status of (a) and (b).
With that in mind, let’s substitute “the universe” for X in (a):
(a) If there are no conceivable observations of the universe that could convince you that the universe doesn’t exist, then it is silly to believe that the universe does exist.
Next, let’s slot “the universe exists” into p in (b):
(b) If there are no conceivable observations of the universe that could convince you that “the universe exists” is false, then it is silly to believe that “the universe exists” is true.
If you accept (a) and (b) then you cannot rationally believe the universe exists because there are no conceivable observations that could show the universe doesn’t exist.
Now that really is silly.
[Footnote: just for fun this afternoon ask yourself what it would take to convince you that you don’t exist. If you can’t come with something then according to these principles it is silly to believe you do exist. Now that might sound idiotic, but there is a potential application. The next time a police officer pulls you over for speeding, tell him that according to (a) and (b) he shouldn’t believe he exists. Then you play your trump card: “Now officer, if you can’t believe you exist, how can you believe that you should give me a ticket for speeding?” Bingo!]
]
