An Evaluation of Atheism versus Belief in God
by Edwin L. Young, PhD
December 10, 2004

Aside from the rituals, supplications, and expressions of gratitude directed toward some supposed invisible being, or object representing a supposed invisible being, which has the supposed power to act on, or be affected by in the intended ways, these behaviors; such groups have generally verbally agreed upon or codified definitions of their concept of the invisible being and its powers. Aside from these generally accepted or codified definitions of the names used to designate the invisible being, there are individual meanings of the concept that are as diverse as there are individuals on earth.

A semantic analysis of these names and their definitions yields the one common result that they refer to no object; neither can the acts intended by these powers be seen; nor can the hoped for or supposed changes in attitude of a deity be observed. If they wish, believers can interpret the behavior of visible nature as confirmation of consistency with their idiosyncratic concept of the nature of the invisible being. For example, a sole survivor of a plane crash can claim it to be a miracle, meaning that it was an act of god to spare the survivor’s life and not spare the non-survivors. The relatives of the non-survivors can claim that the invisible being had some justifiable rationale for not sparing the lives of their kin. Each, both survivors and kin of non-survivors, will, or can, have their own non-demonstrable explanations. In other words, the meaning of the concept of god and the explanation of related events that are supposedly under the control of their god is semantically equivalent to individuals’ idiosyncratic guesses as to what is inside a black box to which they have no access.

Terms with no reference to objects that can be seen; no reference to results of tests that are publicly observable, measurable, and repeatable; no inferences from models with predictions that are consistently reproducible; and no consensus as to an aesthetic value or utilitarian value that is in some way quantifiable are empty and meaningless, except for the idiosyncratic form of comfort each individual derives from holding their particular belief or interpretations. Consequently, the concept of god is meaningless except for the degree of comfort it provides a person.

To accept the concept of god because of the degree of comfort it gives one is to divert one’s focus from the objective world and from exploring coping strategies for dealing with the realities of life with which one is confronted. In other words, it deflects one from learning ego mastery skills. For most people it would take enormous courage to abandon this false sense of comfort, no matter how much it stunts their growth in coping, or ego mastery, skills.

Some might express surprise when reading these statements. Some might wonder if I am claiming that unless something is quantifiable or capable of scientific proof it is not real. They might counter that much of human behavior, for instance psychotherapy practice, would have to be disregarded or discounted since it is not quantifiable or capable of proof. However, let us return to examine the statement, "Terms with no reference to objects that can be seen; no reference to results of tests that are publicly observable, measurable, and repeatable; no inferences from models with predictions that are consistently reproducible; and no consensus as to an aesthetic value or utilitarian value that is in some way quantifiable are empty and meaningless, except for the idiosyncratic form of comfort each individual derives from holding their particular belief or interpretations."

Practically speaking everything related to psychotherapy is observable in some way and, if observable, then there must be some way of measuring or quantifying it. 1) predictions can be made that are based on testable hypotheses; 2) one can draw inferences from the results of predictions that were made based on models of processes we cannot see; 3) results or outcomes from psychotherapy can be compared based on such variables as modalities, methods, processes, or therapist characteristics. Those theories or modalities that are incapable of any kind of test are generally alleged to be spurious products of the theorist's speculation or fantasy until someone finds a way to evaluate them using some form of quantification. Much of Jungianism falls into this group of un-testable theories. If you or someone cannot get or has not gotten some estimate of outcomes from the use of specified and reproducible techniques, then you are either treading on thin ice with a method that is likely to be incorrect or fooling yourself and your clients. All terminology in psychotherapy must point in some way to something that is demonstrable or else it would be like teaching a fairy story or myth for entertainment. Someone’s wish or fantasy is not something that can be replicated in psychotherapy practice or modeled after for practical effects unless or until it is translated into action and subjected to observation and test. This reminds of the joke played on greenhorns in mechanics or carpentry in which the greenhorn is told to go find a ‘skyhook’ or a gullible child is told about the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or ghosts and goblins that will get him if he is not good.

Terms that refer to what is in the black box are based on wild hunches, projections derived from the individual or consensual group self-deception.

On the other hand, for the vast majority of adults, acceptance of this principle of believing that one cannot know what is in the black box, when it applies to their particular belief in god, is simply too threatening to consider. People in this group absolutely must and will find some way to defend against the possibility of the reasonableness of this kind of skepticism. For them, the person who makes such an assertion concerning doubt and the impossibility of knowing what absolutely cannot be seen, especially when applied to the existence of some kind of god or gods, must be deeply resented. These disturbing feelings are not much unlike what happens when fundamentalists and liberals have to deal with each other. The black box idea is just more deeply threatening.

Someone might object that love is not quantifiable or verifiable even though few doubt its existence. They might claim that taking such a position as the need for love to be quantifiable is an example of logical positivism. In opposition, they might cite contemporary authorities who say logical positivism is no longer regarded as an accurate scientific methodology. They might further assert that it is even impossible to achieve pure objectivity in science. To counter the alleged obsolete logical positivism they might assert that contemporary philosophers are espousing a position called "inter-subjectivity", as a methodology that gives validity to more qualitative methods as well as to non-quantifiable data. The concept of inter-subjectivity is the name for the approach used in psychoanalysis.

I am not taking the position of logical positivism here. Qualitative methods have their own type of statistical models. Of course, there are many, who despair of the tough mindedness of logical positivism and the way it seemingly de-legitimizes beauty; art; poetry; subjective feelings; preferences; tastes; values and the like and who, therefore, take refuge in the concept of 'inter-subjectivity'. Inner experiences of beauty, values, and the like are not meant to be public, repeatable, and measurable. Each person has their own preferences and do not have to prove their correctness or objectivity. They may find comfort in consensus and, on the other hand, some may even consider them ‘bad’ if they are in the minority. Yet, they all see the same object. They simply disagree as to its value or degree of beauty and the like. In the face of disagreement, they may clamor for consensus. Are they resorting to "inter-subjectivity"? Perhaps! In this case, however, what does inter-subjectivity mean? Does it mean that our group or community can now build castles of fantasy with respect to the unknowable as long as we can achieve consensus? Does it mean that as long as we agree on a theory or explanation it does not have to be tested, that facts at variance can be excluded or ignored because they are not consistent with our ‘belief’? Does it mean that we do not have the prerogative to question and examine those contravening facts? Does it mean that we can or must avoid testing to see whose version of the ‘supposed’ facts or explanations of opposing groups are valid? Mobs and kangaroo courts would love that.

The consensus of many of the Bush followers build and accept belief systems about economic policy that everyone in their camp does or must adhere to in spite of the fact that eight Nobel Prize winners in economics and one hundred and eighty other leading economists discredit Bush economics. The religious right insists on Creationism in spite of the fact that ninety nine percent of biological scientists for over a century assert evolution as the explanation for billion-year-old fossils and the descent of all species including humans. Are these believers to be exempt from having to look at evidence to the contrary just because they ‘know they are right because the Bible says so’? Two people may choose different methods of executing a task but if they assert that one is more effective based on outcome criteria, they should prove it objectively. "Inter-subjectivity" without reference to and grounding in external reality shares that feature with psychotics.

Those who need to hold on to a belief in a god or afterlife will come up with something to avoid having to face that hideous lack of knowledge, metaphorically speaking, of what is in the black box.

Furthermore, this is not just about what we cannot see. We can construct models to predict connections between conjectures about processes in the mind that will occur under specified conditions and then we can set up tests for these predictions and, finally, we can observe the resultant behaviors to see if they are consistent with our predictions. In this case, do we know, in the sense of observe, what is going on in the mind? No, we most certainly do not. However, we know that something was going on in order to produce the resultant behaviors. If our predictions were substantiated, we can tentatively assume that our conjectures about processes in the mind are useful, workable, hypotheses. We cannot carry out this kind of experiment using hypotheses about what is in the black box.

Jungianism is an example of a theory that leaves us no way to validate many of his crucial speculations. Trying would be like trying to prove that a myth is historical fact. It is not meant to be treated this way. Myth is more like moral instruction or like trying to teach wisdom and teach people how to avoid life’s great mistakes.

Theories about dubious authors of the past can be subjected to comparisons of historical documents and form or higher criticism. These researchers of ancient texts usually provide the caveat that one can never know for sure about their inferences. Similarly, stories about the lives and feats of long past heroes can be subjected to archaeological studies. Some assertions made this way can be reasonably discredited by more extensive studies or new discoveries or findings. In the end, such disputes come down to the degree of validity of the evidence. For example, in court the defense and prosecution can discredit each other’s construction of the past acts and intentions of the accused based on scrupulous comparisons of evidence, not on mere affinities, feelings or a need to agree with one another. In the end, assertions about reality resort to the high court of evidence. Assertions about some possible unseen world can be the province of science fiction, poets, artists, and the like to whom we give license to portray their dreams and imagination in whatever manner they wish. Many do so in highly entertaining and enchanting ways.

In the absence of a competent questioner, one must learn to police oneself and assiduously avoid accepting assertions or beliefs about what is real based solely on one’s subjective need or desire to do so. That is, of course, if one values truth and integrity.