Theology is Falsifiable, thus, - Scientific.

[questfortruth]

One of the names of God is the God of gaps. Therefore, having eliminated the main gaps (for example, describing the Big Bang completely), the Scientists falsify Theology and All Religions. But this means that (according to the Popper Falsifiability Criterion) Theology and Religion is Science.

What are your thoughts?

Is Science the project to discredit Religion?

exchemist: ""God of the Gaps" was a phrase invented by Prof. Charles Coulson, whose lectures on maths for chemists I attended in my first year at university. As well as Prof of Theoretical Chemistry, he was also a Methodist lay preacher and author."

 

[paarsurrey]

One of the names of God is the God of gaps. Therefore, having eliminated the main gaps (for example, describing the Big Bang completely), the Scientists falsify Theology and All Religions. But this means that (according to the Popper Falsifiability Criterion) Theology and Religion is Science.
What are your thoughts?

Which scripture mention "God of gaps"?
Please quote from it with the verses in the context.
Regards

 

[ChristineM]

One of the names of God is the God of gaps. Therefore, having eliminated the main gaps (for example, describing the Big Bang completely), the Scientists falsify Theology and All Religions. But this means that (according to the Popper Falsifiability Criterion) Theology and Religion is Science.

What are your thoughts?

Is Science the project to discredit Religion?

Thoughts? You are making nonsense up again

 

[sun rise]

I don't understand the points in the OP so have only one comment. Science to me is the lens that illuminates creation and is not in opposition.

 

[metis]

One of the names of God is the God of gaps. Therefore, having eliminated the main gaps (for example, describing the Big Bang completely), the Scientists falsify Theology and All Religions. But this means that (according to the Popper Falsifiability Criterion) Theology and Religion is Science.

What are your thoughts?

Is Science the project to discredit Religion?

I can sum this up in one word: "nonsense".

The reality is that science, including the ToE, does not negate Divine creation as it says literally nothing about deities simply because we cannot test that which we cannot see nor perceive.

And as far as "falsification" is concerned, I would hypothesize that there's more of that done in religion than in science.

 

[George-ananda]

What are your thoughts?

Is Science the project to discredit Religion?

Absolutely not. Science and religion are both truth seeking and therefore can not contradict. However at this stage of human development the two have different domains without much overlap.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For the record, the "god of the gaps" is NOT one of the names of God in any religion known to man. It is, rather, a non-believers way of pointing out that too many religious try to make God responsible for anything that isn't understood by science. This has the problem that every time that science discovers another explanation for what was previously unknown, that god gets smaller.

So there's no need to argue further.

 

[exchemist]

Which scripture mention "God of gaps"?
Please quote from it with the verses in the context.
Regards

"God of the Gaps" was a phrase invented by Prof. Charles Coulson, whose lectures on maths for chemists I attended in my first year at university. As well as Prof of Theoretical Chemistry, he was also a Methodist lay preacher and author.

 

[shunyadragon]

One of the names of God is the God of gaps. Therefore, having eliminated the main gaps (for example, describing the Big Bang completely), the Scientists falsify Theology and All Religions. But this means that (according to the Popper Falsifiability Criterion) Theology and Religion is Science.

What are your thoughts?

Is Science the project to discredit Religion?

So danged circular it bites you in the butt . . . along with the delusions of 'arguing from ignorance.'

Science neither credits nor discredits the existence of God(s), nor can demonstrate for falsify the existence nor non-existence of God(s)

 

[exchemist]

For the record, the "god of the gaps" is NOT one of the names of God in any religion known to man. It is, rather, a non-believers way of pointing out that too many religious try to make God responsible for anything that isn't understood by science. This has the problem that every time that science discovers another explanation for what was previously unknown, that god gets smaller.

So there's no need to argue further.

Actually it is, or was originally, a believer's way of pointing this out. See post 8.

 

[Left Coast]

One of the names of God is the God of gaps. Therefore, having eliminated the main gaps (for example, describing the Big Bang completely), the Scientists falsify Theology and All Religions. But this means that (according to the Popper Falsifiability Criterion) Theology and Religion is Science.

What are your thoughts?

Is Science the project to discredit Religion?

Depends on the particular theology or religion. Some theology is unfalsifiable. If it is falsifiable, then science certainly seems like the best system we've developed to test its hypotheses.

Is there any theological doctrine about God (any conception of her) that has ever been falsifiable and stood up to repeated testing?

 

[exchemist]

Plenty of theories are falsifiable without being science. For example, rules of grammar.

 

[Yazata]

Is Science the project to discredit Religion?

In the hands of some atheists it is. They seem to think that science and religion are opposed. Some religious thinkers (Aquinas and co.) invent (or adapt from Aristotle) various theistic arguments like the 'Design argument' or the 'First cause argument'. Then atheists try to use Darwin to attack the design argument, or some kind of 'quantum fluctuations' stuff to attack the first cause idea. And I suppose that many of those atheists do think that they have falsified the theistic arguments.

But this means that (according to the Popper Falsifiability Criterion) Theology and Religion is Science.

What are your thoughts?

It's an interesting idea.

I'm not all that familiar with Popper, but I doubt if he really meant that if a hypothesis is falsifiable, then it must be a scientific hypothesis. I think he was arguing more the other way, that if a hypothesis is scientific, then it needs to be falsifiable.

In other words, falsifiability isn't sufficient to make something a science, but Popper thought that it was necessary.

 

[shunyadragon]

Absolutely not. Science and religion are both truth seeking and therefore can not contradict.

Science is not truth nor proof seeking, but simply the evolving body of knowledge based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis. Ancient religions, not all, are more truth claiming than truth seeking. It is best for both religions and science that they do not seek truth.

However at this stage of human development the two have different domains without much overlap.

Conditionally agree. and from the human perspective many do tend separate and conditional accept science in terms of their own religious perspective.

 

[Nakosis]

One of the names of God is the God of gaps. Therefore, having eliminated the main gaps (for example, describing the Big Bang completely), the Scientists falsify Theology and All Religions. But this means that (according to the Popper Falsifiability Criterion) Theology and Religion is Science.

What are your thoughts?

Is Science the project to discredit Religion?

I see science as a method of eliminating incorrect answers. Science would be able to show where the answers provided by theology are incorrect. I suppose the job of science is to discredit incorrect answers.

 

[McBell]

In the hands of some atheists it is. They seem to think that science and religion are opposed. Some religious thinkers (Aquinas and co.) invent (or adapt from Aristotle) various theistic arguments like the 'Design argument' or the 'First cause argument'. Then atheists try to use Darwin to attack the design argument, or some kind of 'quantum fluctuations' stuff to attack the first cause idea. And I suppose that many of those atheists do think that they have falsified the theistic arguments..

that theists, not all mind you, just the ones who do, are all the time making claims that are falsified....

 

[paarsurrey]

For the record, the "god of the gaps" is NOT one of the names of God in any religion known to man. It is, rather, a non-believers way of pointing out that too many religious try to make God responsible for anything that isn't understood by science. This has the problem that every time that science discovers another explanation for what was previously unknown, that god gets smaller.

So there's no need to argue further.

"It is, rather, a non-believers way of pointing out that too many religious try to make God responsible for anything that isn't understood by science."

If people make G-d responsible for something they believe out of superstition, it is their fault. G-d is not bound by their superstitions.
Believers and non-believers are prone to their own superstitions as humans are not perfect. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

"God of the Gaps" was a phrase invented by Prof. Charles Coulson, whose lectures on maths for chemists I attended in my first year at university. As well as Prof of Theoretical Chemistry, he was also a Methodist lay preacher and author.

So, there is no God of the gaps, it is a phrase current in the non-believers having no truth in it. Right,please?

Regards

 

[McBell]

So, there is no God of the gaps, it is a phrase current in the non-believers having no truth in it. Right,please?

Regards

If asked how can bees fly when their wing surface is not large enough to provide adequate lift you answer "GodDidIt" you just created a God of The Gaps.

 

[Twilight Hue]

One of the names of God is the God of gaps. Therefore, having eliminated the main gaps (for example, describing the Big Bang completely), the Scientists falsify Theology and All Religions. But this means that (according to the Popper Falsifiability Criterion) Theology and Religion is Science.

What are your thoughts?

Is Science the project to discredit Religion?

Provide an example in theology that's falsifiable that can be tested by science.