Placing limits to the scientific method?

[RichardT]

I've heard some people on this forum say that science says nothing about God. I would like a more thorough explanation of this because I actually agree with Dawkins when he says that a universe "designed" by God makes different predictions than one that hasn't been "designed" by God.

If you could explain yourself better, I would appreciate it.

 

[Skaloop]

I've heard some people on this forum say that science says nothing about God. I would like a more thorough explanation of this because I actually agree with Dawkins when he says that a universe "designed" by God makes different predictions than one that hasn't been "designed" by God.

If you could explain yourself better, I would appreciate it.

I think that what is generally meant by "Science says nothing about God" is that in specific theories, evolution for example, there is not a claim or conclusion either for or against the existence of God. It merely describes what we do see happening, regardless of whether God did it or not.

But like you said, science can examine specific claims regarding specific gods. For the Christian God, who is allegedly involved in human affairs, it is possible to investigate whether there is any influence from God on the well-being of people. For example, Christians should show, on average, more positive lives than both atheists and those who believe in other religions. This would be expected if God does respond to prayer. But there is no significant difference in the lives of Christians versus atheists or Buddhists or Hindus or any other religious group.

So science can show that there is no evidence of God favouring Christians through the answering of prayers, but that only eliminates on specific type of God. Other god concepts that do not rely on the answering of prayer are still possible. Science cannot really examine a vaguely described god, but it can investigate specific claims about a specific god.

 

[[serious]]

while science makes no statement about the existance of God, it does explain phenomina in such a way that supernatural causes can be ruled out. lightning is a static discharge, diseases come from germs, etc.

 

[Mike Flynn]

I think that what is generally meant by "Science says nothing about God" is that in specific theories, evolution for example, there is not a claim or conclusion either for or against the existence of God. It merely describes what we do see happening, regardless of whether God did it or not.

Generally its agreed that science is any theory that makes a testable prediction. Some will argue, for example, that 'astrology is not a science'. I disagree. It IS a science in the sense that it makes a testable prediction: that significant events (deaths of close family members, birth of children, etc) in a person's life is correlated to the position of planets in the various constellations.

Some people claim that 'intelligent design' is not a testable theory. I disagree. It is testable just as a claim on the origins of the great pyramid is testable.

So Dawkins is right when he says that the claim that 'God made the universe' is quite possibly a testable claim. This is what allows him to claim that it has been falsified.

For example, Christians should show, on average, more positive lives than both atheists and those who believe in other religions.

Not Christians, but religious people across the board have been shown quite consistently to be 'happier' than atheist/agnostic counterparts in several studies.

This would be expected if God does respond to prayer.

More than 70% of randomized double-blind studies indicate a positive correlation between prayer and health. Of course, we can debate about whether 'God' is involved. Nevertheless, the positive benefits of prayer are well documented.

Science cannot really examine a vaguely described god, but it can investigate specific claims about a specific god.

Neither can science examine consciousness in any meaningful way because it is difficult to define. Yet I am absolutely certain it exists.

 

[Skaloop]

Not Christians, but religious people across the board have been shown quite consistently to be 'happier' than atheist/agnostic counterparts in several studies.

Which still suggests that the specific God of the Bible does not exist. There may be a god that favours anyone who is religious, but that is one of those vague gods I mentioned.

As for personal opinion, I have no doubt that those studies have some accuracy, and that religion can help make people happier. This does not necessarily lead to any religious beliefs being correct, however. Religion brings a sense of community, a sense of importance, and a sense of belonging; those can certainly make someone happier, even if the religion is a sham.

More than 70% of randomized double-blind studies indicate a positive correlation between prayer and health. Of course, we can debate about whether 'God' is involved. Nevertheless, the positive benefits of prayer are well documented.

But again, the link is there regardless of religious affiliation or which god is prayed to. The question is not about the possible benefits of religious belief, but the existence of a specific God who favours those who believe in Him over those who do not. And that cannot be shown.

 

[Split Rock]

I've heard some people on this forum say that science says nothing about God. I would like a more thorough explanation of this because I actually agree with Dawkins when he says that a universe "designed" by God makes different predictions than one that hasn't been "designed" by God.

If you could explain yourself better, I would appreciate it.

What predictions does a universe made by God make? I have heard from creationists that whatever we find in the physical world is evidence of God's creation. If the genetic code is universal, this is evidence of God's creation. If it had not been universal, would that have constituted evidence against God's creation? No.

In order to make predictions based on God's design, one first must understand the mind of God. What did he want to design? What tools did he use? What was his purpose? These are many different answers, from different people; none of them exactly the same. Then we have the whole issue of a "Fallen" creation. Now the "perfect" creation is fouled up becasue of man's sin. With this excuse, anything we find that isn't "perfect" can be explained away with The Curse. Where does that leave any hope of falsification?

 

[Mike Flynn]

Which still suggests that the specific God of the Bible does not exist. There may be a god that favours anyone who is religious, but that is one of those vague gods I mentioned.

If you are claiming that religious beliefs are mutually exclusive, then you haven't been doing your homework here. I would say that the evidence to day doesn't indicate that the 'God of the Bible' doesn't exist. Rather, it would indicate that the people who wrote the Bible were working through an incomplete understanding of the world.

To say otherwise would be akin to claiming that Gravity discussed by Isaac Newton does not exist because he did not have a complete or completely correct accounting for it.

Religion brings a sense of community, a sense of importance, and a sense of belonging; those can certainly make someone happier, even if the religion is a sham.

Which is merely a statement of assumptions and personal beliefs on your part.

And that cannot be shown.

Maybe not, but it does amount to evidence that the kind of materialism promoted by a large body of atheists cannot adequately account for the available data.

It also shows that atheists have their complement of unsupported biases and beliefs as well...and they aren't as 'happy' about it.

 

[Mike Flynn]

In order to make predictions based on God's design, one first must understand the mind of God. What did he want to design? What tools did he use? What was his purpose?

The claim isn't for subjective comments on God's 'purpose'...the question is more rudimentary...was the universe designed or not? Remember..Dawkins (as on the right of Atheism as they come) would agree that this IS a valid question to test.

I don't have to say anything about the motives of the ancient Egyptians to claim that the Great Pyramid was designed...IOW to distinguish it from the kind of order that is possible via a natural process. Neither would aliens have to know anything about humanity and the 'tools we use' in order to claim that the voyager probe was not a natural phenomenon.

We are not talking about falsifying the various theological claims of Christianity or any other religion. We are talking about what particular claims of Christianity (ie that God made the universe) are testable.

 

[RecentConvert]

I've heard some people on this forum say that science says nothing about God. I would like a more thorough explanation of this because I actually agree with Dawkins when he says that a universe "designed" by God makes different predictions than one that hasn't been "designed" by God.

If you could explain yourself better, I would appreciate it.

Surely, this depends on one's notion of God. It would be difficult for science to say anything about a pantheistic god but if the god in question made particular claims that can be tested, then science could say something about that god...

I'm unaware of any testable predictions made by orthodox Christianity. When Dawkins says that a universe designed by God makes predictions, I'm guessing he's referring to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, which would make certain, falsifiable predictions. If you agree with Dawkins, what predictions of what faith do you think are testable?

 

[Mike Flynn]

The irony is that Dawkins himself counters a universe design argument by appealing to the 'Many World' interpretation of quantum theory....which is by definition an untestable position.

 

[RecentConvert]

The claim isn't for subjective comments on God's 'purpose'...the question is more rudimentary...was the universe designed or not? Remember..Dawkins (as on the right of Atheism as they come) would agree that this IS a valid question to test.

I don't have to say anything about the motives of the ancient Egyptians to claim that the Great Pyramid was designed...IOW to distinguish it from the kind of order that is possible via a natural process. Neither would aliens have to know anything about humanity and the 'tools we use' in order to claim that the voyager probe was not a natural phenomenon.

I'm beginning to think that "design" is a vague term. At least, it's being used in a vague way in a theological context. There's a building notion of a dichotomy between something that is natural and something that is designed but does this really make sense? I think we'd all agree that beavers are natural but are their dams natural? Aren't things built by natural things natural? Are fairy rings natural? ...or are they "designed" by the reproductive mechanisms of mushrooms?

Aside from the documentation of the Egyptions, we'd say that the pyramids were designed by people because people are capable (and arguably likely) of building pyramids and no known natural phenomena is, so it seems like a natural (mind the pun) conclusion.

Similarly, aliens would probably conclude that Voyager was designed by (to them) aliens because no known natural mechanism (other than themselves, presumably) produces Voyager probes or even anything like it. If they were too primitive to build one, themselves, they could very well conclude that it was natural. If stars spat out Voyager probe like things on a regular basis then even intelligent aliens would have trouble discerning our Voyager probe from natural probes. Such is the nature of reality...

If it's not belabouring the point, it's perfectly natural for racoons to come to my campsite and take my food. Unscrupulous campers could also have come to my site and stolen my food. If my food mysteriously went missing, how would I conclude that that was a natural or an artificial event? Perhaps this is what people mean when they say that "science says nothing about God." There's no context to discern whether the Universe simply behaves the way it does or whether it was "designed" to do so?

 

[RecentConvert]

The irony is that Dawkins himself counters a universe design argument by appealing to the 'Many World' interpretation of quantum theory....which is by definition an untestable position.

I think Dawkins' hope is that, as the theory develops, it will produce testable hypotheses. We expect the same from string theory and the physics community is growing impatient over its proponent's inability to do so...

To Dawkins' credit, this really isn't his main argument against design. I think his main issue is that it is simply an unsupported conjecture that the Universe can behave in any other way than it does...

 

[Split Rock]

The claim isn't for subjective comments on God's 'purpose'...the question is more rudimentary...was the universe designed or not? Remember..Dawkins (as on the right of Atheism as they come) would agree that this IS a valid question to test.

The question isn't one of design, but of "intellegent design." Natural selection "designs" organisms and structures, yet it is not intelligent. If we do not know what the designer is capable of or what his motivations are, how can we test the hypothesis of "design?"

I don't have to say anything about the motives of the ancient Egyptians to claim that the Great Pyramid was designed...IOW to distinguish it from the kind of order that is possible via a natural process. Neither would aliens have to know anything about humanity and the 'tools we use' in order to claim that the voyager probe was not a natural phenomenon.

We know that the Great Pyramid was designed because the Egyptians used building techniques and materials that are similar to what we use. We can build large structures from stone, so we know what they look like and how they are designed. Would aliens recognize the voyager probe as designed by intelligent beings? Maybe... maybe not.

We are not talking about falsifying the various theological claims of Christianity or any other religion. We are talking about what particular claims of Christianity (ie that God made the universe) are testable.

Only the specific claims are testable. Was there a global flood? Is the earth 6,000 years old? Are humans unrelated to other organisms? Those sects that make no such specific claims about the physical world (such as the Catholic church) are not falsifiable.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

God is an inherently philosophical concept. Science can't test philosophical concepts. Ergo, science can't test God.

 

[Tomk80]

Generally its agreed that science is any theory that makes a testable prediction. Some will argue, for example, that 'astrology is not a science'. I disagree. It IS a science in the sense that it makes a testable prediction: that significant events (deaths of close family members, birth of children, etc) in a person's life is correlated to the position of planets in the various constellations.

Some people claim that 'intelligent design' is not a testable theory. I disagree. It is testable just as a claim on the origins of the great pyramid is testable.

So Dawkins is right when he says that the claim that 'God made the universe' is quite possibly a testable claim. This is what allows him to claim that it has been falsified.

This would, however, depend on the specific theory. For example, the 'theories' of intelligent design creationism so far are untestable. Perhaps 'discernable' is a better word here. For example, Behe's irreducible complexity concept has no way to discern his theory from 'not knowing' something and therefore fails as science.

I would agree that we could make tests for intelligent design. Based on our knowledge of human design and genetic algorithms, for example, we could say that if we encounter something that falls in a twin-nested hierarchy, it is probably not designed. For my part, I do consider intelligent design falsified for this reason.

Not Christians, but religious people across the board have been shown quite consistently to be 'happier' than atheist/agnostic counterparts in several studies.

More than 70% of randomized double-blind studies indicate a positive correlation between prayer and health. Of course, we can debate about whether 'God' is involved. Nevertheless, the positive benefits of prayer are well documented.

Citations? My suspicion would be that this would be due to community binding. For example, it has also been shown that people with a conservative background put more emphasis on community than people with a liberal background and are on average more at ease with others and more likely to seek the company of others. But due to the linkage between fundamentalism and conservatism, religious studies would show the same effects. So you'd have to control for factors like community cohesion. Did these studies do that?

Same with prayer. Meditation has also been shown to have health benefits and prayer can be seen as a form of meditation. Is the meditative part responsible for the benefits or the 'god'-part? Has this been tested? How does meditation compare to prayer as far as health benefits go?

Neither can science examine consciousness in any meaningful way because it is difficult to define. Yet I am absolutely certain it exists.

Science can still investigate something when it is vaguely defined. Making testable hypothesis can than lead to better, stricter definitions. Science can that way at least put a boundary on the problem. As it does with consciousness. This makes consciousness a problem that can be investigated.

For God, we can this way at least deliminate the problem. Point is that with God, other than with consciousness, this delimination has lead to the rejection of virtually all clear definitions. This means that the only thing left is something so badly defined that it cannot be tested anymore. That makes it unscientific (or perhaps 'beyond science', as people like McGrath would like us to believe).

 

[plindboe]

Generally its agreed that science is any theory that makes a testable prediction.

So if I have the theory that there are goblins on the Moon, that's science?

Some will argue, for example, that 'astrology is not a science'. I disagree. It IS a science in the sense that it makes a testable prediction: that significant events (deaths of close family members, birth of children, etc) in a person's life is correlated to the position of planets in the various constellations.

It has been tested and failed. If a "theory" doesn't deliver, it should not be considered science.

Some people claim that 'intelligent design' is not a testable theory. I disagree. It is testable just as a claim on the origins of the great pyramid is testable.

What exactly would this test look like? Try to describe one that can falsify intelligent design, but can't be salvaged by ad hoc hypotheses.

The reason why the idea of ID is untestable, imo, is because it's defined so vaguely, that no matter what any test shows, people can easily rescue the "theory" with minor rationalizations.

Not Christians, but religious people across the board have been shown quite consistently to be 'happier' than atheist/agnostic counterparts in several studies.

Possibly. With religions, caring communities often follow, which could be one explanation. Without trials that control for church attentance for instance, it's difficult drawing exact conclusions about what causes these differences.

Of course people love jumping to their preferred conclusions whenever they see a correlation, if their bias is strong enough.

More than 70% of randomized double-blind studies indicate a positive correlation between prayer and health. Of course, we can debate about whether 'God' is involved. Nevertheless, the positive benefits of prayer are well documented.

I'd like to read those studies, please.

Peter

 

[Mike Flynn]

I think Dawkins' hope is that, as the theory develops, it will produce testable hypotheses. We expect the same from string theory and the physics community is growing impatient over its proponent's inability to do so...

Many worlds is *by definition* an untestable hypotheses as any detection/communication with other universes is impossible according to the theory. Thats why we refer to it as an 'interpretation'. String theory is theoretically testable, we simply lack the technology to test it.

Dawkins appeal to many worlds is telling since no one in their right mind would accept it as a valid argument in other circumstances. A theif, for example, cannot argue in court that the physical evidence, DNA, etc.. against him was purely coincidental because we happen to be living in a universe where this unlikely scenario happens to be true. So on the one hand Dawkins acknowledges the evidence for design in the universe, on the other he makes an untestable...and frankly nonsensical...appeal to many worlds to explain it away.

Of course, straying from evolutionary biology into philosophy and physics was a dangerous stretch for Dawkins...which is why the arguments in 'The God Delusion' read like a case study in logical fallacy.

 

[Mike Flynn]

I'd like to read those studies, please.

Actually I first heard this statistic from a producer of a national science program in Canada called 'Quirks and Quarks'. His exact words were 'Did you know that 75% of the studies done on prayer and healing show a positive correlation?'

I was surprised myself. I have emailed him to get the reference...but he never responded. I have read several individual studies that show a positive correlation, and since the producer himself is an atheist and what I have read seemed to agree, I was inclined to accept the number as valid.

I will try again and see what I can dig up. I can say, though, that a simple google search will flag several such studies.

 

[Mike Flynn]

So if I have the theory that there are goblins on the Moon, that's science?

If we can test it, then in a sense it is. Of course if your theory cannot be tested, then it is hardly a theory. Usually people find evidence before they make a claim like this. IOW, they make a claim that has already been tested against evidence. So if you say there are Goblins on the moon but you have no evidence and have never seen evidence, then your claim has failed the test as soon as you make it....and you are a nut.

If aliens visited the moon and spotted the flag and the footprints, then they could claim aliens. Are you saying this is not a scientific position?

It is the misconception of the modern world that if we label something 'science' then it automatically must carry some validity. Lots of science may one day turn out to be false...and yet it is still science.

Many worlds and pilot waves are untestable hypotheses...so are they science because they come from the minds of physicists to explain phenomena where classical physics has spectacularly failed?

Nevertheless, lots of people mistake many worlds and pilot waves for scientific hypotheses.

 

[Baggins]

More than 70% of randomized double-blind studies indicate a positive correlation between prayer and health. Of course, we can debate about whether 'God' is involved. Nevertheless, the positive benefits of prayer are well documented.

Can you back that up? All the data I have seen show that there is no positive correlation between prayer and health.

In fact the some studies showed a small negative correlation.

http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

Largest Study of Third-Party Prayer Suggests Such Prayer Not Effective In Reducing Complications Following Heart Surgery

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3193902.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4681771.stm

Christians then trot out the mantra that this is testing god and that studies will never show a positive result when you are testing god.

Which makes you woinder why other smaller and less rigourous studies do show a small positive correlation. Beats me, perhaps it depends on what mood god is in.

Often these large studies that show no correlation are doing it wrong, according to Christians, whilst the smaller studies showing positive correlations are doing correctly no doubt

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2005/07/25/a_prayer_for_health/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002901053_pray31.html

Praying for a sick heart patient may feel right to people of faith, but it doesn't appear to improve the patient's health, according to a new study that is the largest ever done on the healing powers of prayer.

And we are all aware of the low esteem that god holds amputees in.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

I can only assume that you are adding up all the small unscientific trials as being of equal worth as the large double blind trials at major American hospitals. And evenm then I can't see your 70% figure being correct.