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

  1. Nana10 June 2013 at 16:13

    As a scientific theory the idea of god fails but as scientific theories go, do we improve the idea or get rid of it and find a better alternative?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Elholandesdelacasa10 June 2013 at 18:05

    Why would you look for another alternative that's bound to fail for the same reasons?

    There are already a number of alternatives, all very vague like 'energy' or 'something'. These explain nothing. I'd get rid of the idea.

    A valid scientific answer is: 'I don't know, let's find out' or 'I don't know, it can't be known'. I prefer honesty to confabulations.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Kalam Cosmological Fallacies

I didn't think I would need to continue writing about atheism, but circumstances force me. Noblesse oblige, and all that shite. In other words, I ran into somebody who thinks you can prove god logically... in the twenty-first century, using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Well, let's rip that one apart, shall we? I'll focus on the formal logic here. Others have more practical objections to Kalam. The form of the argument is as follows. Premise A: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Premise B: The universe began to exist. Conclusion C: Therefore, the universe has a cause. If premises A & B are true, conclusion C must be true. While it can be argued that premise A may not be true, let's just accept this argument. “The universe has a cause” So far, so good, nobody got hurt in this exercise? Now, Kalam makes magic happen... [see the update below] Let's do a “non-sequitur” logical fallacy “therefore cause of the univer...
Read more

Fallacies 'R Us

Image
After debating with religious people on Twitter for a number of months (mostly Christians, some Muslims and a few... stray bullets), I thought to myself that all arguments for gods are based on flawed logic. A short convo confirmed that, indeed, my fellow atheists on Twitter believe the same. This is a short list with the most common logical fallacies I've encountered. This post will be updated to incorporate new fallacies when they present themselves. The Fallacy Fallacy Warning: Using flawed logic doesn't mean that your conclusion is necessarily wrong, it just means that you cannot base your conclusion on that logic. Let's think about an example to clarify this. Suppose you are going to visit your family, and they ask you at what time you'll arrive. You take into account the inevitable traffic jam and estimate an hour. Then, you step into your car and lo and behold, there is no traffic jam... but you get a flat tire. You arrive at the estimat...
Read more

Guts

I've had a long convo with -a person who wants to remain anonymous-, a former Young Earth Creationist (YEC) about evolution (and religion, and abiogenesis, and morality...). This convo is ongoing with the exact same result; -S- returning to her default position of denial (of evolution) and affirmation (of creation). The latest development is that -S- is now a believer of Intelligent Design (ID); her beliefs have evolved (changed over time). She's not a Christian any more. I'm not sure if she's gone from YEC to Old Earth Creationism. It seems nearly impossible to convince -S- that evolution is possible, probable and, in fact, a scientific fact. Still, one can only try :-) and try, and try, and try again. The thing is that -S- needs to look at evolution from a different angle because she has been bombarded with creationist' propaganda that she chooses to believe over the biologists' evidence. How can you convince someone who believes the ea...
Read more