Monday, November 06, 2006

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

There has been a lot of talk - perhaps even a resurgence in some senses - of atheism recently. It's cool to be atheist again. Richard Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' has received a lot of attention (and also, it should be pointed out, some pretty damning responses as well). I blogged below about this quote - "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - which I came across recently. I love it and it's really made me think but as I have reflected on it I have begun to wonder whether actually the problem is not a lack of evidence for God's existence but - and I know this sounds nuts - almost that there's too much! Now I know this is not an argument to use when talking with an atheist! But the whole of life seems so deeply suffused with divine presence that I wonder whether it's just too obvious - we're too close to it - and we almost can't see the forest for the trees. What do you think?

1 comment:

soulster said...

I started a co-blog with an atheist recently []. Right now I'm just listening and commenting to the various atheist perspectives on things -- trying to get an understanding before I open my mouth.

I deeply believe that since "in him we live, and move, and have our being" God is so universal that it is difficult to see him. I liken it to the same problem of gravitation. Currently, gravity is the only force not well explained by quantum theory. General relativity includes it in the equation, but exactly how it works, what it is, etc., is difficult to say. The problem is not that gravity is rare, like some of the other fundamental forces. The problem with understanding gravitation is its unversality. Gravity must be interpreted in to be observed because it is so easily taken foregranted and ignored for its largness.

I'm not sure whether saying so will make a difference to atheists, but we'll see.