Many people who reject the idea of God as irrelevant or superstitious boast in modern science as being an objective, bias-free worldview. They claim that the scientific-methodological tradition (called positivism) is free from theological speculation. Positivism holds that only those things that are observable, testable via experiments, and logical provide factual knowledge. Positivists reject theology and metaphysics as being pointless because these, they say, cannot be verified or falsified through observation and experiments.
What I find to be the problem with positivism is not its strict, empirical principle – it’s that it doesn’t practice what it preaches.
Positivism’s theological dogma. Positivism establishes reasonable, core principles for developing knowledge that many people across different philosophies and faiths can agree with: Our knowledge must be grounded in real, observable evidence that can be tested and that is logically coherent. But when positivists claim that God or God’s existence cannot be empirically verified through observation or logic, they make a theological statement that is as “speculative” or faith-based as any other theological statement. Positivism acknowledges that the laws and forces at work in nature indeed are verifiable—but positivism makes the assumption that these observable phenomena have no theological relevance or significance, although the empirical evidence and logical reasoning does not at all require us to make such an assumption. Quite the contrary!
The mathematical order and logic pervading nature, the complexity and fine-tuning of the laws at work, are the clearest and most objective and compelling evidence of a Supreme Intelligence. Several of the most prominent scientists in history saw the logic pervading the universe as empirical evidence of an intelligent Creator. So did the Greek philosophers, of which many were pantheists. Pantheists see nature itself as the Supreme Being manifesting itself to our senses. The assumption that the forces and laws in nature are the outworking of blind and mechanical principles is not at all evident or the most reasonable option.
In completely rejecting all theology as speculative and un-empirical, positivists make a dogmatic theological and metaphysical statement: God is not observable with our senses, they preach. Nature is driven by mechanical, blind forces, they preach. This agnostic philosophy they claim to be the neutral view—but it is in fact a metaphysical and theological view that in no way is more empirical or scientific than theistic views.
This is what I think makes true positivists particularly challenging to reason with, because positivism in word claims theological neutrality while it in practice promotes a modern and widely accepted metaphysical and theological (secular, agnostic/atheist) worldview camouflaged as empirical thinking. Positivism is agnosticism; it pretends neutrality in questions about God while in reality perpetuating dogma about God that are practically atheistic: “God is unknowable”, “God is non-physical”, “God is non-observable”, “God is non-intelligible” etc. and finally, “God is non-real”. These beliefs about God are completely valid from a philosophical standpoint (like any other philosophical belief), but they are no more empirical than theism. They are beliefs about God.
Thus, positivism that despises theology is fundamentally self-contradictory and hypocritical. It pretends objectivity in a way that discourages its adherents from truly thinking critically about the most fundamental questions in life, including questions of knowledge. A philosophical self-awareness is necessary for the development of any kind of knowledge, and there is no such thing as a theologically or metaphysically neutral philosophy when we understand the all-encompassing implications of the concepts of God and nature.
Comte’s views on nature, theology, and atheism. Reading up on positivism, I found Auguste Comte’s (the pioneer of positivism) own definition of positivism according to positivists.org:
The true Positive spirit consists in substituting the study of the invariable Laws of phenomena for that of their so-called Causes, whether proximate or primary; in a word, in studying the How instead of the Why. (…) The principle of Theology is to explain everything by supernatural Wills. That principle can never be set aside until we acknowledge the search for Causes to be beyond our reach, and limit ourselves to the knowledge of Laws.
Auguste Comte, A General View of Positivism [1848] (London: Routledge & Sons, 1908), pp. 50-53
Comte says that the point of positivism is to study the how (“how does the universe work”), not the why (“why does the universe exist”). The why is the realm of theology and is speculative, he says. Comte continues to say that the search for “Causes” (the why) is something beyond our reach as human beings. Therefore, positivists should limit themselves to the knowledge of the laws of nature.
My question is: How does Comte know so confidently that the “Causes” are beyond our reach? Does not positivism teach that the laws and forces in nature themselves are the causes, the why, to the universe’s existence? How can Comte then ascertain that these are not the same as the “Causes” addressed in theology? What kind of theological Causes does he envision since he can ascertain that they are completely beyond our reach? This is the agnostic assumption that mystifies and separates theology from the observable reality in a way that is not at all self-evident or necessary.
We must critically ask ourselves what kind of proof or evidence we imagine to be necessary in order to verify the existence of an intelligent Creator, and whether our ideas are sensible.
“The whole world is a series of miracles, but we’re so used to them we call them ordinary things.”
— Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1875), Danish author and poet
Considering how many atheists pride themselves in their so-called scientific worldview, it’s interesting to note that Comte himself viewed atheism as even more illogical than theism:
The Order of Nature is doubtless very imperfect in every respect; but its production is far more compatible with the hypothesis of an intelligent Will than with that of a blind mechanism. Persistent atheists therefore would seem to be most illogical of theologists: because they occupy themselves with theological problems, and yet reject the only appropriate method of handling them.
Auguste Comte, pp. 50-53
Comte makes the point that atheism indeed is a theological belief (“God does not exist”) and therefore not free from speculation. However, positivism is here again presented by Comte as the reliable, speculation-free solution because it is supposedly “theology-free”. My response to that is that positivism (agnosticism) is as much a theological teaching as atheism. While atheism teaches that God is not real and doesn’t exist, agnosticism teaches that God is not observable and therefore unknowable. Both atheism’s and agnosticism’s views present theological ideas about God and are, in Comte’s own terms, “speculative” or faith-based. Positivism is therefore not at all free from theological speculation.
The religious outcome of positivism. As theologically neutral and religiously objective as positivism presented itself to be, its logical implications indeed proved to be religious. Comte was the founder of a religion in which the object of worship was humanity.
Thus Positivism becomes, in the true sense of the word, a Religion; the only religion which is real and complete; destined therefore to replace all imperfect and provisional systems resting on the primitive basis of theology.
Auguste Comte, pp. 363-365
It becomes particularly evident from the next quote that positivism was not as theologically neutral as Comte claimed.
With such a mission, Science acquires a position of unparalleled importance, as the sole means through which we come to know the nature and conditions of this Great Being [Humanity, of which every individual is the conscious element and of which this Great Being is composed], the worship of whom should be the distinctive feature of our whole life. For this all-important knowledge, the study of Sociology would seem to suffice: but Sociology itself depends upon preliminary study, first of the outer world, in which the actions of Humanity take place; and secondly, of Man, the individual agent.
Auguste Comte, pp. 368-374
If the theological dogma embedded in positivism weren’t clear before, they become clearer now with positivism’s explicit deification of humanity. In the worship of humanity as “the distinctive feature of our whole life”, humanity takes the transcendent role – namely, the role of God. This is the fruits of atheism, the denial of any greater power or moral authority than humanity. An atheistic lifestyle is the practical result of agnosticism.
The object of Positivist worship is not like that of theological believers an absolute, isolated, incomprehensible Being, whose existence admits of no demonstration, or comparison with anything real. The evidence of the Being here set forward is spontaneous, and is shrouded in no mystery. Before we can praise, love, and serve Humanity as we ought, we must know something of the laws which govern her existence, an existence more complicated than any other of which we are cognizant.
Auguste Comte, pp. 368-374
Obviously, I personally disagree with positivism’s theology and would argue that worshiping humanity as the greatest being is superstitious and unreasonable since humanity evidently did not create the universe nor ourselves. However, as a religious practice it’s completely valid. The core issue here is that it as a philosophy claims to be non-theological or theologically neutral when it truly isn’t. That’s self-deception.
Serving humanity is doing theology. It’s interesting to note that Comte connects the “praise, love, and service of Humanity” to the development of knowledge of the laws that govern human existence. This, he says, is the noble work of sociology. As a graduate myself majoring in sociology and theology, I have learned one thing: Faith in God serves humanity’s needs in so many ways that it is fundamentally un-sociological and anti-human to treat theology as irrelevant or unnecessary. The self-defeat of positivism seen in history (positivism turning into a religion) demonstrates that it’s not possible, nor is it in humanity’s best interest, to rid oneself of faith and religion. All is ultimately faith; here the agnostic point that we cannot have any absolute, infallible knowledge rings true. If positivism was truly agnostic and pragmatic (as positivists.org claims), there would be no hypocritical prejudice against faith and theology. There would be no imagined requirement to choose between science and religion, between the how and the why. Both are useful tools of developing practical knowledge; both complement each other and can contribute to making sense of the world and bettering life for us and humanity in different ways. And both validate and support each other.
The distraction of social status and academia. I think it’s sad how the ideological aspects of positivism pervading modern science and academia have robbed many people of some of the learning experiences that to me have been the most practical, meaningful and growth-inspiring parts in life. We’re easily swayed by social status and majority trends. I believe the atheist/agnostic trend is shifting and will shift even more as more scientists step forward enlightened by their discoveries and reaffirming the existence of a Creator. The next thing that we’ll need to discuss more openly as a society is how philosophy, theology, and science can inform us concerning the Creator’s character and will.
“For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’ […] God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. […]
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness,’ and again, ‘The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.’”
— Paul of Tarsus, in 1 Corinthians 1:19-29 and 3:18-20 (ESV)
Some view the idea of a personal, Supreme Being as childish and anthropocentric. But arguments insinuating that certain ideas are too simple to be considered and critically assessed are fallacious and unscientific. Firstly, there is nothing simple about personal beings. Our own existence as personal beings is “more complicated than any other of which we are cognizant”, according to Comte. Personal beings are more complex than any other lifeforms on earth. The idea that an intelligent and personal Supreme Being is childish is decidedly fallacious and self-contradictory.
Secondly, the idea of a personal Supreme Being is only simple in the sense that it’s practical. Even from a young age can we relate to such an idea since we ourselves are personal beings. The truth is that we all have an analogous, simplified understanding of the world because that’s how we make sense of and use knowledge – by comparing greater, more complex realities to lesser and simpler things from our own experience. Our understanding of the universe is decidedly childish precisely because it’s simplified. And it’s simplified in order to be practical. There’s nothing shameful or untruthful about that. The only thing that’s shameful or untruthful is pretending that we can be free from this epistemological predicament. Ideas that we regard as simple are often the most effective and powerful due to their practical worth.
Thirdly, if there is a personal Creator, there is nothing childish or anthropocentric about assuming that the Creator would make Himself relatable to His creation. We observe the fundamentally social and parental behavior not only in humans, but in all intelligent forms of life. Why should we assume anything else about higher forms of life?
Lastly, from a moral perspective and considering the fact that human pride and selfishness is root to so much evil and suffering in our world, it makes sense morally that a Supreme Being would communicate through that which is common and accessible also to the unprivileged rather than through some kind of social or cultural elite. The common, childlike faith in a personal God has been viewed by many academics as foolish, but what if this is a key to a better life and a better world? What if God indeed is so readily available that elitists and the proud won’t see it? What if this is a powerful lesson to the human pride and selfishness in our world?
There are other problems that undeniably arise with the idea of a personal Creator—perhaps most importantly the problem of evil. This probably is the easiest and most popular excuse for persistent atheism. It’s a deeply emotional moral problem that many have a hard time exploring critically. How can God be good when there’s so much evil and suffering in the world? This will be the topic for another testimony.
This is my testimony. What is yours? Feel free to share in the comment section below!
Kendel's Messiah 
Leave a comment