Every time I hear some religious advocate such as Ben Stein, producer of "Expelled" ranting off about how science excludes God, or the notion of a God, I get a little annoyed.
On CBC's "Where Is God Today"
feature this morning, they were interviewing Ben Stein about how hard done to some researchers he knows of are because they were pursuing research to demonstrate the existence of "intelligence" in the design of life.
Science is about what we can know and demonstrate with facts. I don't care what spiritual knife you use, it is simply impossible to tangibly test any hypothesis that is based on invoking supernatural forces that may or may not exist. Hypothesis like Intelligent Design fail as "science" because of this very basic precept.
Any hypothesis has to be testable - that is a fundamental underpinning of science. Anytime you invoke the supernatural, even in the abstract sense that "Intelligent Design" does, you guarantee that the hypothesis or model you are working with is no longer testable because anything you cannot explain rationally is automatically subsumed by the external, unverifiable "intelligence".
Testing a hypothesis always contains the prospect that you will find the hypothesis is falsified by the test. The presence of "meta beings" in such circumstances inhibits further inquiry as the "meta being" becomes an explanation for any data points that "don't fit".
Critics of science of complain that "the goalposts move" because the details of theories change and refine as new evidence comes into the picture (or leaves it). Michio Kaku does a lovely job of describing the often tortuous path that String Theory has taken in Parallel Worlds. If you want to talk about "god" or other metaphysical beings, go for it, but don't expect science in general to take you seriously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
On March 19, 2024 the United Conservative Party of Alberta held an event that they called " Let Kids Be Kids " (spoiler alert: i...
-
So, India is expanding its temper tantrum over Canada expressing concerns over the suspected role of the Modi government in the murder of ...
-
There is an entire class of argument that we see in discourse that basically relies on the idea that “physical attribute X means that Y can ...
3 comments:
Can't disagree with you here. See, not all conservatives are religious zealots....
See, not all conservatives are religious zealots....
Never claimed they were, Bill. The zealots just happen to provide more material than most.
The sad truth of the matter where these people are concerned is that in an effort to 'prove' the existence of God they 'anthropomorphize' God, assuming that they know how God will think and feel.
If I'm even remotely close on the concept of God there is no way of anyone can safely say that they know the 'Will or Mind of God', if they pull out that set of contradictions called the Holy Bible to 'Thump' me over the head with I'll quickly point out that it was written by men, interpreted and re-interpreted over and over again, sections discarded and re-written to suit the politically needs of the time.
Just take a look at how many versions/interpretations of the 'Word of God'; whose version is the 'right' one? And which version of religion is the right one? The Jews, Christians and Muslims all have their version of God, and that's just the three Western religions.
One's belief in God is a matter of personal faith and should remain as such. Organized religion is a societal creation, influenced by the surrounding environment, serving and being served by the community and its people, or something like that. But as all things human it is often co-opted by those who see it as a means to achieve their own end, regardless of the cost, so long it is someone else who pays the price.
God is a matter of belief and faith in something greater than ourselves, in something beyond our normal senses ability to perceive, in the intangible. That is what makes God what it is, and why one cannot prove nor DISPROVE the existence of God. Science is just the way we interpret the world around us, and in my opinion a better version than the limited view of our collective ancestors over some 6000+ years ago. And if anyone thinks I'm questioning God, it is not the existence of God, just the various interpretations of God, and those doing the interpretations.
E.
Post a Comment