Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/14/04 4:06pm
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "One quick comment" on 09/13/04 10:20am
>>>>Nonetheless, we have highly sophisticated mathematics
>>>>imprinted in the universe that did not have to exist.
>>>
>>>No, it didn't have to exist, but it does. The question
>>>is why.
>>
>>Precisely. Theism offers explanatory power here.
>
>Qualities of a good theory are:
>
>1) explanatory power
>2) predictive power
>3) falsifiability
The qualities of a good theory like those above fall into the realm of philosophy of science. But for now let’s assume we’re talking about general principles of rationality. Quality #3 is not a very good one, as I'll come to later.
>Theism offers MANY explanations about MANY things -
>for example, I might say that, "Lightning occurs
>because God is angry and needs to punish anything
>that's tall for trying to reach Heaven by zapping it
>with Godly Electricity!!!"
>
>Yep - that's explanatory power for you.
But that's hardly what I had in mind. Beware the straw man.
I was thinking more like the origins of the physical universe and its intricate mathematical order, the existence of objective moral values, the existence of souls among humankind etc.
>How about predictive power? Well, I'm kind of at a
>loss for this one... Exactly what phenomena should we
>expect to see if we assume that God exists? Wade?
>Anyone?
The existence of souls for humanity, the existence of objective moral values, perhaps some markings indicating to us that God exists (e.g. imprinting a universe with sophisticated mathematical patterns, fine-tuning physical constants etc.).
>And finally, the real doozy - falsifiability. Damn.
Falsifiability per se is not a good criterion to judge a theory. There's the Duhem-Quine problem for one thing. Scientific theories cannot be empirically falsified, even good ones. I'll give an example: macroevolution. While perhaps a good theory it is not falsifiable. Think I'm wrong? Give me one piece of data I wouldn't be able to explain away.
There are other considerations that reveal the problem of "falsifiability." Take for instance necessary truths. Some believe that God has necessary existence. If so, it would not be falsifiable, so according to this criterion we should not believe in the existence of God (or at least consider it a “bad” belief) even if it were proven that he necessarily exists. But surely that is absurd.
Another thing. What about the claim that there has been, is, or will be a mass of silver that contains exactly 986 atoms. It is not falsifiable, but if discovered to be true (if we actually find such a mass of silver) should we pretend it's not true? Obviously not. In practice, falsifiability isn't a good criterion even though it sounds good on paper.
It's somewhat close to it in that there must be some ground rules (unstated or not) on when to accept/reject a theory. Take the five-minute hypothesis for instance. It can be accepted equally easily no matter what data is liable to show up. The same is not true for theism (e.g. the problem of evil).
>Theism just isn't falsifiable.
Which is not inherently problematic. It certainly doesn't change the evidence for theism.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 