Log in

No account? Create an account

Evidentia pro Deo?

"Evidentia pro Deo?"
"Evidence for God?"

I just saw this:

Dawkins comes for the Archbishop, and can there be evidence for God?

Jerry Coyne, if you want to treat the god hypothesis as a scientific hypothesis, we need to come up with a scientific definition of god as well as falsifiable hypothesis for it.

The problem with allowing religious ideas to be the best hypotheses of a phenomenom, even tentatively, is that religious ideas are not contingent upon scientific evidence.

Religion, by its very nature, will always attempt to have religious ideas weasel their ways out of the rules of science.

And once a religious claim becomes appropriated by science, it stops being a religious claim, but becomes a scientific one.

After all, as you like to say, science and religion are not compatible.

And if they are not compatible, then a religious idea is not directly compatible with science. Such an idea needs to be appropriated by science first, and after that happens, one could also appropriate the language of religion for science.

Perhaps that's what you mean when you wrote this:

Richard says that one can’t distinguish that evidence from the actions of an evolved alien or super-human, but I’m willing to provisionally accept that evidence as “god” pending more data.

Fair enough, but the problem then is that you are using a strange definition of god that is not fully defined well enough to be a scientific definition, nor is it a definition that religionists would want to hold (since it would be bound by the rules of science).

Unless we can come up with some good, hard definitions in science for god, it probably is not the best idea to use these words, since they are so drenched in the slime of theological thought.


Sailor Saturn/Hotaru Tomoe

November 2013



Powered by LiveJournal.com