God as a scientific theory

The reason, I think, god(s) are still worshipped today, is because you can view god as a valid scientific theory. As I described in my post about the scientific method, there are four reasons why a scientific theory should be discarded:

1. The facts are wrong.
2. A simpler theory is proposed.
3. New facts cannot be explained by the theory.
4. Better facts cannot be explained by the theory.

Let's check the 'god' theory against these criteria.

1. All facts are "god's work", so no issue here.
2. Magic is the easiest explanation (for some people), so no issue here.
3. New facts, see point one - god's work, no issue.
4. Better facts, see point one - god's work, no issue.

Looks pretty good for 'god' as a scientific explanation, doesn't it?

Apart from these criteria, I mentioned 'predictions', this is a bit of a killer. It's absolutely impossible to base predictions on god. After all, anything that will happen is 'his will'.

People try, though; they predict the apocalypse over and over again, always with the same result (so far).

Lastly, 'god did it' as an explanation is a bit of a damper on curiosity. Hey, how is it that birds can fly? -- god did it... Not very exciting, for a scientific investigation.

The modern definition of god is a supernatural being. This means that god and reality don't meet:
  • Science can only say something sensible about nature, about observable, repeatable, verifiable facts.
  • God deals in magic / miracles. Miracles are by definition not repeatable or verifiable facts.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Formal logic

Genesis 1:1 * describes the following logic Informally Premise P1: God exists. Premise P2: If P1 then "the universe is as old as the earth**". Conclusion C1: The universe is as old as the earth. Formally P1 → C1, P1        C1 This form of logic is called Modus Ponens. The truth of C1 doesn't imply the truth of P1 because there may be other explanations for C1. Lets look at the following classical example Premise P3: It rains Premise P4: If P3 then "the streets are wet". Conclusion C2: The streets are wet There are other possible explanations for wet streets: A cleaning crew just passed, there were games with water, the dikes were broken, etc ... However, we can say that, if the streets are not wet then it doesn't rain. Formally P3 → C2, ¬C2        ¬P3 This form of logic is called Modus Tollens and is the inverse of Modus Ponens. To return to Genesis 1:1. C1 is false and Modus Tollens applies. P1 → C1, ¬C1        ¬
Read more

Abortion

Image
You want your freedom - By Ashvin Harrison with permission In my opinion, the "abortion debate" isn't actually a debate. Some people want to give rights to fetuses that don't have cognitive abilities to exercise those rights while taking away the right of self-determination from women who do have cognitive abilities. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Is a fetus a human being? I really don't care if it is, or isn't. Does a fetus have the right to live? No, it doesn't. Human rights begin at birth according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let's imagine we give a fetus the right to live. How can we determine whether a fetus wants to exercise that right? We can't. That is not a right, but an obligation. These people want to force fetuses onto the world whether these fetuses want, or not. Let's imagine we take away women's right of self-determination, a right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Hu
Read more

Scientism

Image
" Scientism " means misusing the word " science ". You can misuse it either by calling something that can't be measured "scientific", or by claiming that something without sufficient supporting evidence is "scientific". It is a word that's thrown around by people who hardly know what it means and who certainly don't know what the word "science" means or what the scientific method is. "Scientism" is also a word used in philosophy to denote an excess of confidence in science, and has legitimate uses. However, the people who accuse others of "scientism" are not at all interested in philosophy. They are solely interested in delegitimizing the scientific method. They are anti-science . Period. Why are they against science? Is it because they are not scientifically literate? Do they have economic motivations? What worries me is the number of people that are anti-science. There's a war on science g
Read more