Theology and Falsification?

Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revelatory article 'Gods'.  Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the forest.  In the clearing was a stone cabin, nice but incomplete. One explorer says, "some builder must be building this." The other disagrees, "There is no builder." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No builder is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible builder." So they, set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H.G. Wells's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not he seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a builder, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a builder who has no scent and makes no sound." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive builder differ from an imaginary builder or even from no builder at all?"

No, actually, I'm just kidding, this is not Antony Flew's famous parable read by thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of college students over the past half century, but I will give here the real parable and excerpt from "Theology and Falsification":

'Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revelatory article 'Gods'.   Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they, set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H.G. Wells's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not he seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"'

In "Theology and Falsification" Antony Flew presents his famous "parable", read no doubt by thousands or even hundreds of thousands of college students over the last half century:

'Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revelatory article 'Gods'.   Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they, set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H.G. Wells's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not he seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?" . . . The Sceptic says there is no gardener. The Believer says there is a gardener (but invisible, etc.) '

Ultimately for Antony Flew "an invisible gardener" (or Creator) is no different than an "imaginary" or non-existent one.

There are many famous "proofs for the existence of God", but it is the proof given by Saint Paul in his "Epistle to the Romans" that is capable of refuting the error of Flew.  Most "proofs" go from what Aristotle calls accidents of a substance or "categories", to the existence of the invisible God.  The starting point of Saint Paul's proof is not accidents but substance.

The "ontological argument" for the existence of God formulated by Saint Anselm departs from the idea of God and reasons to the reality of God.  Saint Thomas and others before him rejected the "ontological proof", arguing that you could not go from the logical order to the real order.  It has nevertheless found, in some degree, supporters from Scotus to Decartes and Leibniz and even some, at times, unlikely philosophers in our own day continue to find it fascinating.

The proofs of Aristotle and Saint Thomas, depart from the knowledge we gain through our senses.  The point of departure is: causality, movement, order (design), perfections etc.  These are, in the terminology of Aristotle, accidents of substance.  Order or design doesn't exist in the real world separately from ordered things and designed things.

Saint Paul's starting point is not qualities or characteristics of things, but things themselves:

"For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are

clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His

eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable." (Rm. 1, 20)

The starting point of Saint Paul is "the things that are made".  What is the logical force or implication of this starting point?

Whereas most proofs for the existence of God, from the known visible data gained by the senses, go immediately to the unknown invisible; Saint Paul's proof, goes from the known invisible and visible data of the senses, to the unknown invisible truth, reasoning, in effect, in the form of a compound analogy:

Just as the invisible idea in a workman's mind is known by means of the made artificial object, so too, the invisible idea in God's mind is known by means of the made natural object.  Though we cannot see the invisible idea in the mind of an artisan, once he has "realized" it and it can be known by means of sense knownledge, his invisible idea is revealed.

Unlike Anselm, this argument does not go from an idea to a reality; nor like the arguments of Aristotle and Thomas, does it go from a quality to a thing; the argument of Saint Paul goes from the certain and universal knowledge of man's experience in turning an invisible idea into a reality, to "the invisible things of God"  into the real objects of creation.

Contrary to Flew's opinion that "the invisible" is, in effect, the equivalent of "the imaginary" or the non-existent, Saint Paul's proof recognizes that "the invisible" is a known part of the most common and fundamental human experience.  "The invisible" is not, as Flew assumes, a category of an imaginary or nonexistent world, but is a known reality of this world that must be admitted, and should, by following logic, lead us to the reality beyond this world.

As long as the initial premise is a quality as an "order" or design, one can argue that it is only "in the mind of the beholder"; but if the starting point is a thing, then you must admit the design, because otherwise, you could not recognize the thing.

No thing indeed is called: "nothing".  It is a contradiction to say that you know or recognize what something is, but that there is no design there.  How would you know what it is?

Saint Paul's starting point is irrefutable and cannot be denied by anyone without falling into a contradiction.