Theology and Falsifiability

[zippy2006]

This thread will be something of a sequel to the thread found here and especially the main artery of that thread mapped out here. Needless to say, it properly belongs in the philosophy forum, but is placed here due to the (temporary?) closure of philosophy.

We hear a lot about the essential falsifiability found in modern science, and it is implied that theology's failure to adhere to this standard is proof of its vacuity. I hope to argue in this post that deviation from scientific falsifiability is not a problem in general, and then later to argue that the deviation is especially not a problem for theology. Let's begin by setting out two different kinds of falsifiability, a falsifiability of modern scientific experiment (Fmse), and a counterfactual falsifiability (Fcf):

Fmse: something is falsifiable if and only if it is vulnerable to falsification via future scientific experiments or new data.

Fcf: something is falsifiable if and only if I can imagine a different state of affairs in which it is false.​

Fmse is characteristic of the modern hard sciences. For example, a predictive theory is proposed and newly discovered data is expected to be reliably predicted by the theory. There is a real temporal possibility that at some point in the future data will be discovered which contradicts the predictions of this theory, at which point the theory will be discarded or refined.

If something is Fmse then it is also Fcf, but the fact that something is Fcf does not necessarily mean it is Fmse. This is because if something is falsifiable via future observations, it must also be able to imagined to be false, but a proposition could be imagined to be false without there being any possibility of its being falsified in time--in the future. Something which is solely Fcf (and not Fmse) has a kind of infallibility about it which cannot be disproven by modern scientific experiment, but which at the same time could have been different than it in fact was. One example of a proposition that is Fcf but not Fmse involves qualia:

P1: Joe perceived red yesterday.
​

This simple perception of a color is a past event which is bound to a subject. There is no future observation that could disprove this knowledge which has a kind of infallibility. Yet at the same time it is Fcf, for we can imagine a different state of affairs in which it is false. Imagine, for example, the possibility that Joe saw green instead of red. Thus Fcf does involve knowledge and is closely tied to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Note too that P1 is neither fallible nor inductive--the two reasons given earlier to account for the falsifiability of the modern hard sciences.

Therefore not all knowledge need adhere to scientific falsifiability, Fmse. Qualia, well-established past events, and basic axioms such as the principle of non-contradiction, the principle of sufficient reason, and the importance of Fcf itself are a few examples that come to mind. Indeed some of these basic axioms may not even be accountable to Fcf.

In my next post I will move to a consideration of theology itself.

 

[zippy2006]

I will now set out the basic argument in favor of theology. That said, I hope to address more foundational objections to the first post before moving on to this one.

My thesis is that theology is not Fmse but is Fcf and therefore enjoys a legitimacy not unlike the qualia of P1 above. My purpose is to show that theology has a certain rational and determinate methodology and is not imagination run wild, unbound by Fcf and the Principle of Sufficient Reason. My purpose is not to rationally demonstrate Christianity or faith, but rather to show that the theologian (who already possesses faith) is simply applying his rational powers to the material of his faith by engaging in theology.

So what is theology? Theology is a science which proceeds from principles revealed by God. We know the revealed principles by faith. Faith is belief in some proposition because an authority has testified to it. So if I read a scientific journal article which makes a case for evolution and believe what is presented without seeing the evidence personally, I believe in evolution on faith, on the authority of the scientific author of the article. Similarly, when God tells/reveals something, we believe it, for God is the author of all creation and Truth itself who can never lie.

How does one come to know these revealed principles in practice? According to the Catholic tradition, God reveals such things through scripture and through his Church--especially through Ecumenical Councils. For example, the Council of Nicea definitively determined that God is a Trinity of persons.

The theologian's task is to set to work, using his reason and faith to proceed from the revealed principles to further conclusions. Oftentimes he may also work with natural premises, arguing that the faith is compatible or incompatible with certain systems of knowledge.

Scripture scholars translate the scriptures into modern languages and make arguments for various interpretations of the Word of God. Fundamental theologians argue for the credibility of faith and show the interleaving of philosophy and theology. Moral theologians focus on how theology impacts the practical lives of the faithful. Systematic or dogmatic theologians show how various doctrines and dogma interrelate and fit together into one coherent system. Historical theologians show how the Church and her doctrines have developed and changed over time, etc.

All of the various disciplines of theology are falsifiable. Many are Fmse, not precisely in the sense of scientific experiments but rather in the sense that future observations and discoveries will impact the theological theories. The more famous and abstract theological disciplines may not be Fmse, but are certainly Fcf. Despite not adhering to modern scientific falsifiability, these disciplines are rational, rigorous, and legitimate.

Theological faith is unique in the sense that true articles of faith such as the Trinity cannot be verified by independent means. Yet there are a large number of disciplines that take their premises on faith, except that it is--in principle if not always in practice--possible for these disciplines to independently verify the propositions taken on faith. For example, evolutionary scientists may take archaeological findings on faith, physicists and engineers may take mathematical principles on faith, computer scientists may take machine code and and computer engineering on faith, historians may take texts and textual criticism on faith, and architects may take principles of geometry on faith. For all practical purposes, these disciplines also take their premises to be Fcf but not Fmse, although multidisciplinary individuals may possess the wherewithal to verify multiple levels of premises.

 

[durangodawood]

I always thought "to falsify" meant to demonstrate as false. Thats the definition of the term. Fcf looks to me like a fatal weakening of the definition to permit theology acceptance as a science.

Fcf seems to permit almost boundless falsifiability to an active imagination. Whats not falsifiable under fcf? A couple logic axioms perhaps. Anything else?

Congrats! We've destroyed another perfectly good useful word.

 

[Kylie]

I have to agree with Durangodawood. Your concept of something being falsifiable if you can imagine a state of affairs counter to that thing is a poor one because it allows you to imagine things to be wrong in order to make them wrong.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I can imagine there are 5 gods or 11. But without a way of testing whether there are 5 or 11, I don't see any utility in these different imaginings.

You focus on future experiments, but falsifiability is also useful in the past and right now, to ensure that alternative explanations are indeed wrong, and we are on the right track. We know Newtonian physics is wrong, so we don't have to worry about 'theological debates' pitting the Newtonians against the Einsteinians.

But rival theological positions exist side by side (assuming one side cannot exterminate the other).

There seems to be no way to determine even the simplest facts as a starting point for theology, whether the number of gods is zero, one, three, or many. These are all Fcf and that empty classification offers you no help in even getting to square one.

 

[Michael]

We hear a lot about the essential falsifiability found in modern science, and it is implied that theology's failure to adhere to this standard is proof of its vacuity.

That claim is based upon pure hypocrisy, and "scientists" would consider that statement to be about as "non-scientific" as it gets.

Edge.org

Sean Carroll
Theoretical Physicist, Caltech; Author, The Big Picture
Modern physics stretches into realms far removed from everyday experience, and sometimes the connection to experiment becomes tenuous at best. String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth. The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable.

The truth is the opposite. Whether or not we can observe them directly, the entities involved in these theories are either real or they are not. Refusing to contemplate their possible existence on the grounds of some a priori principle, even though they might play a crucial role in how the world works, is as non-scientific as it gets.

The atheistic "MEME" that science deals only in falsifiable claims is pure unadulterated hogwash. Even something that CAN be 'tested' in a lab, is often unfalsifiable by definition. While we "could" test "some" possible energy states of "dark matter", we could never hope to test every single possible energy state. The entire argument becomes an "exotic matter of the gaps" claim.

Something like M-theory cannot be falsified. QM definitions of gravity defy falsification. "Space expansion" claims cannot be falsified either. Many scientific ideas defy empirical falsification.

 

[Michael]

I can imagine there are 5 gods or 11. But without a way of testing whether there are 5 or 11, I don't see any utility in these different imaginings.

And yet you personally have no problem with 5 or 11 mathematical models of exotic matter theory, you don't have any problem with "space expansion" claims which could *never* be falsified or verified in controlled experimentation, and there are *many* supernatural variations of inflation theory to choose from. In fact, you folks have to combine *four* unfalsifiable entities/claims simply to "hold belief" in "big bang" theory, and you have no problem doing that!

There seems to be no way to determine even the simplest facts as a starting point for theology, whether the number of gods is zero, one, three, or many. These are all Fcf and that empty classification offers you no help in even getting to square one.

And what way do we have to determine the simplest of facts about "dark energy"? The last SN1A supernova study put the likelihood of dark energy even existing at all at around 3 sigma, 2 sigma short of a real "discovery" in physics. How do you even know it exists? 95 percent of LCDM theory is based upon placeholder terms for human ignorance, so what's "simple" about that theory?

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

 

[Steve Petersen]

And yet you personally have no problem with 5 or 11 mathematical models of exotic matter theory, you don't have any problem with "space expansion" claims which could *never* be falsified or verified in controlled experimentation, and there are *many* supernatural variations of inflation theory to choose from. In fact, you folks have to combine *four* unfalsifiable entities/claims simply to "hold belief" in "big bang" theory, and you have no problem doing that!



And what way do we have to determine the simplest of facts about "dark energy"? The last SN1A supernova study put the likelihood of dark energy even existing at all at around 3 sigma, 2 sigma short of a real "discovery" in physics. How do you even know it exists? 95 percent of LCDM theory is based upon placeholder terms for human ignorance, so what's "simple" about that theory?

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

The difference is elementary: Multiverse is not dogma; it is at best a hypothesis. The existence of God or gods is taught as fact.

 

[zippy2006]

As a disclaimer, I should say that I am by no means adamant about calling Fcf "falsifiability." It could perhaps more fruitfully be described along the lines of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. That said, I would argue that Fcf does bear a certain essential relation to falsifiability, a relation that the non-believer, "Variant", was able to discern rather quickly in my previous thread.

I always thought "to falsify" meant to demonstrate as false. Thats the definition of the term.

Yes, but falsifiability means something like "the abstract possibility that something could be demonstrated as false." Even our basic perceptions have a bit of such falsifiability insofar as they are not tautologies, insofar as they are constrained to map to the reality at hand.

Fcf looks to me like a fatal weakening of the definition to permit theology acceptance as a science.

The falsifiability proper to the hard sciences is Fmse, as explicitly noted in the post. Theology often fails that criterion, as I readily admitted.

Fcf seems to permit almost boundless falsifiability to an active imagination. Whats not falsifiable under fcf? A couple logic axioms perhaps. Anything else?

What is not falsifiable under Fcf? Precisely something like Bertrant Russell's teapot example. Note that Fcf requires the ability to "imagine a state of affairs in which it is false." That means that the current state of affairs must provide grounds for believing the proposition is true. This is why I said it is so closely connected to the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

I have to agree with Durangodawood. Your concept of something being falsifiable if you can imagine a state of affairs counter to that thing is a poor one because it allows you to imagine things to be wrong in order to make them wrong.

I don't understand what you are saying. I seems like you are confusing falsifiability with falsity. Can you explain? Why would it "allow you to imagine things to be wrong in order to make them wrong"? It doesn't make them wrong, it makes them falsifiable, or Fcf to be more precise.

I readily admit that the normal kind of scientific falsifiability is Fmse, and that theology often does not have this kind of falsifiability.

 

[zippy2006]

I can imagine there are 5 gods or 11. But without a way of testing whether there are 5 or 11, I don't see any utility in these different imaginings.

Then you misread Fcf. It requires the ability to "imagine a state of affairs in which it is false." That means that the current state of affairs must provide grounds for believing the proposition is true. It's not simple imagination.

You focus on future experiments, but falsifiability is also useful in the past and right now, to ensure that alternative explanations are indeed wrong, and we are on the right track. We know Newtonian physics is wrong, so we don't have to worry about 'theological debates' pitting the Newtonians against the Einsteinians.

The essence of scientific falsifiability has reference to future findings. This is because in order for something to be falsified, new data or considerations must be brought to bear against it. If nothing new is brought against it, it must remain in good standing and cannot be falsified. That is the significance of Fmse's reference to future data. It doesn't matter if the theory, like evolution, posits things about the past. Changes to the theory are still always potentially future, and in this is the essence of falsifiability.

But rival theological positions exist side by side (assuming one side cannot exterminate the other).

Rival scientific positions also exist side by side. I see no significant difference.

There seems to be no way to determine even the simplest facts as a starting point for theology, whether the number of gods is zero, one, three, or many. These are all Fcf and that empty classification offers you no help in even getting to square one.

I will just quote where I already answered this:

How does one come to know these revealed principles in practice? According to the Catholic tradition, God reveals such things through scripture and through his Church--especially through Ecumenical Councils. For example, the Council of Nicea definitively determined that God is a Trinity of persons.

As noted above, Fcf and the related arguments pertain to the methodology of certain disciplines, such as theology. That is, it pertains to how they operate when we are already past "square one." Of course Fcf will also apply to the initial steps of such a discipline, but the thread isn't about giving proofs for faith or converting people to Christianity.

My thesis is that theology is not Fmse but is Fcf and therefore enjoys a legitimacy not unlike the qualia of P1 above. My purpose is to show that theology has a certain rational and determinate methodology and is not imagination run wild, unbound by Fcf and the Principle of Sufficient Reason. My purpose is not to rationally demonstrate Christianity or faith, but rather to show that the theologian (who already possesses faith) is simply applying his rational powers to the material of his faith by engaging in theology.

 

[Michael]

I readily admit that the normal kind of scientific falsifiability is Fmse, and that theology often does not have this kind of falsifiability.

That "normal" type of fallibility doesn't even apply to cosmology theory by the way. Not all branches of "science" enjoy that type of falsification potential.

 

[Michael]

The difference is elementary: Multiverse is not dogma; it is at best a hypothesis. The existence of God or gods is taught as fact.

'Big bang' theory certainly *is* dogma, and no amount of "evidence" can falsify it.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

The *entire basis* for exotic matter claims was shown to be flawed in *numerous* and *massive* ways, and every so called "experiment" on exotic matter was a total bust.

Astronomers even use outrageous terms like "proof" to convey their sense of certainty.

 

[zippy2006]

That "normal" type of fallibility doesn't even apply to cosmology theory by the way. Not all branches of "science" enjoy that type of falsification potential.

That may be true in the present age, but perhaps 100 or 1000 years down the road we will have made progress which will allow us to adjudicate between the more subtle competing cosmological theories. Don't you think so?

 

[Michael]

That may be true in the present age, but perhaps 100 or 1000 years down the road we will have made progress which will allow us to adjudicate between the more subtle competing cosmological theories. Don't you think so?

Nope. In fact the "space expansion" claim, the entire "basis" for the theory will *forever* remain an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer". It doesn't happen in labs here on Earth. It doesn't happen in our solar system. It doesn't happen even in our whole galaxy, or even our local galaxy cluster. There is nowhere that humans could even hope to go where "space expansion" could be experimented with in a lab. In fact the moment we introduce a "lab", we add too much mass/energy for "space expansion" to happen.

Meanwhile supposedly the inflation genie cause "Space expansion" when all the mass/energy/curvature of the universe was condensed to something smaller than proton. Talk about miracles.

Astronomers can't even name a single source "dark energy", let alone explain how it retained near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.

None of their four unfalsifiable claims will ever be "falsifiable" by later technology. We can't even create "dark energy", or "inflation" in lab and nobody even has a clue how would *might* so in the future.

In terms of falsification potential *today* not even a "supernatural" definition of God is *less falsifiable* than LCMD theory. If in fact LCDM theory could be falsified in a "normal" manner, all the failed exotic matter "tests" at LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc would have falsified it by now. Even their "dark energy" claim is based on only 3 sigma "evidence", 2 sigma short of an actual or real "discovery" in physics. Even still, astronomers keep insisting that it's "real".

 

[Loudmouth]

I see no reason why any deity would inherently lack falsifiability. If a deity is omnipotent, then that deity could pop into existence for all to observe and test. A deity could produce a fully grown apple tree at the drop of a hat for all to see. In fact, that is how many creationists believe that the first apple trees came to be.


At one time in history people believed that God was interacting with nature in a detectable way. They believed that God was creating lightning, moving the planets about, and all sorts of other effects. In fact, Darwin even spoke of theists who chaffed at the idea of a machine like natural force moving the planets about:

It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws".--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species​

It isn't so much that theism is unfalsifiable, but more so that it is dogmatic. A belief in a deity was not founded on evidence, and it can't be changed by evidence. What theists are saying is that nothing will change their beliefs. I consider this to be an unreasonable and irrational conclusion, but people are certainly within their rights to have these beliefs.


Another way to say this is that theists would not accept this same way of thinking if it involved something other than their preferred deity. For example, they would not accept a lack of falsifiability when it comes to the efficacy of a drug or the safety of an airplane. Would they accept the argument that a plane was safe even if it crashes 50% of the time? The only place this irrational and unreasonable method of reaching conclusions is accepted appears to be in theism.

 

[zippy2006]

It isn't so much that theism is unfalsifiable, but more so that it is dogmatic. A belief in a deity was not founded on evidence, and it can't be changed by evidence. What theists are saying is that nothing will change their beliefs. I consider this to be an unreasonable and irrational conclusion, but people are certainly within their rights to have these beliefs.

Dogma is thought to be falsifiable in the sense of Fcf but not in the sense of Fmse. That is, dogma is unfalsifiable according to the scientific criteria (e.g. experiment, new data, etc.). So I think the reason you dislike dogma is because it is unfalsifiable, no? Because "nothing will change their beliefs." Because it is not even in principle able to be changed or falsified.

I think your answer is relevant insofar as it shows forth a common opinion of non-believers, "Fcf may carry with it a kind of falsifiability that theology adheres to, but it is too weak a falsifiability to be considered worthwhile. Only a falsifiability like Fmse is legitimate." This is, I think, what some of the above posters are slowly getting at.

Another way to say this is that theists would not accept this same way of thinking if it involved something other than their preferred deity. For example, they would not accept a lack of falsifiability when it comes to the efficacy of a drug or the safety of an airplane. Would they accept the argument that a plane was safe even if it crashes 50% of the time? The only place this irrational and unreasonable method of reaching conclusions is accepted appears to be in theism.

If I might ask, what exactly is this "irrational and unreasonable method of reaching conclusions"? What is their method?

 

[Loudmouth]

That is, dogma is unfalsifiable according to the scientific criteria (e.g. experiment, new data, etc.). So I think the reason you dislike dogma is because it is unfalsifiable, no?

Dogma is unfalsifiable by every definition. Dogma means that it is assumed to be true no matter what. There can be nothing that falsifies it.

I think your answer is relevant insofar as it shows forth a common opinion of non-believers, "Fcf may carry with it a kind of falsifiability that theology adheres to, but it is too weak a falsifiability to be considered worthwhile. Only a falsifiability like Fmse is legitimate." This is, I think, what some of the above posters are slowly getting at.

The actions and beliefs of theists outside of theology show that this is true. They wouldn't accept anything other process other than Fmse when it comes to things outside of theology. They certainly wouldn't accept the idea that Odin whispered to someone that sugar was a viable treatment for cancer. They wouldn't accept the idea that angels are responsible for making airplanes fly, but do so in a way that is indistinguishable from aerodynamic lift. Only in theology is dogma considered to be normal.

If I might ask, what exactly is this "irrational and unreasonable method of reaching conclusions"? What is their method?

There is no method. Theistic beleifs are not based on evidence, and can not be changed by evidence.

 

[zippy2006]

Dogma is unfalsifiable by every definition. Dogma means that it is assumed to be true no matter what. There can be nothing that falsifies it.

It's not unfalsifiable by Fcf. Did you happen to read the OP by chance?

The actions and beliefs of theists outside of theology show that this is true. They wouldn't accept anything other process other than Fmse when it comes to things outside of theology.

In the OP I show that all people accept something other than Fmse for "Qualia, well-established past events, and basic axioms such as the principle of non-contradiction, the principle of sufficient reason, and the importance of Fcf [or Fmse] itself."

They certainly wouldn't accept the idea that Odin whispered to someone that sugar was a viable treatment for cancer. They wouldn't accept the idea that angels are responsible for making airplanes fly, but do so in a way that is indistinguishable from aerodynamic lift. Only in theology is dogma considered to be normal.

There is no method. Theistic beleifs are not based on evidence, and can not be changed by evidence.

So why do they accept something like the Trinity? Do you really not know? Do you really think it is some random choice of proposition to believe, or that there is no method at all by which they arrive at their beliefs? Your claim flies in the face of human psychology, among other things. People don't believe things for no reason at all. To do so would probably not even be possible.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not unfalsifiable by Fcf. Did you happen to read the OP by chance?

Putting claims in the opening post does not make them true. Dogma, BY DEFINITION, means that it is assumed to be true no matter what. It is unfalsifiable by any measure.

In the OP I show that all people accept something other than Fmse for "Qualia, well-established past events, and basic axioms such as the principle of non-contradiction, the principle of sufficient reason, and the importance of Fcf [or Fmse] itself."

" For example, evolutionary scientists may take archaeological findings on faith, physicists and engineers may take mathematical principles on faith, computer scientists may take machine code and and computer engineering on faith, historians may take texts and textual criticism on faith, and architects may take principles of geometry on faith."

None of those things are taken on faith. All of those things require evidence and falsifiability.

So why do they accept something like the Trinity? Do you really not know? Do you really think it is some random choice of proposition to believe, or that there is no method at all by which they arrive at their beliefs?

From what I can tell, it is a product of culture and geography. People tend to practice the religions they grow up with.

Your claim flies in the face of human psychology, among other things. People don't believe things for no reason at all. To do so would probably not even be possible.

I will agree that people believe things for bad reasons.

 

[zippy2006]

Putting claims in the opening post does not make them true... Dogma, BY DEFINITION, means that it is assumed to be true no matter what. It is unfalsifiable by any measure.

Do you understand what is meant by Fcf, counterfactual falsifiability?

" For example, evolutionary scientists may take archaeological findings on faith, physicists and engineers may take mathematical principles on faith, computer scientists may take machine code and and computer engineering on faith, historians may take texts and textual criticism on faith, and architects may take principles of geometry on faith."

None of those things are taken on faith. All of those things require evidence and falsifiability.

Do you understand what faith is? Have you read the arguments in the OP contrary to your assertion?

I have little time for those who merely assert sans argument.

From what I can tell, it is a product of culture and geography. People tend to practice the religions they grow up with.



I will agree that people believe things for bad reasons.

Ah, so there is a method? There are reasons? I'm glad to see you changing your tune. Perhaps in the future you would do well to try to actually learn something about the reasons and methods of theists.