What is a 'theory' ?

[Thief]

Only when theology makes claims that are wrong.

You don't watch enough tv.

There are dozens of scientists, trying really hard to support scripture.

Their take on it seems a bit....awkward.
But they are trying.

 

[tumbleweed41]

And science as a rebuttal to theology?

There are many participants here who make such practice.

I did not mention theology.
But since you bring it up...

Science is not a rebuttal to theology, science is a rebuttal of some of the pseudoscientific claims made by religious dogmatists.

 

[Copernicus]

And science as a rebuttal to theology?

There are many participants here who make such practice.

I agree with polyhedral. Theology has to make coherent testable claims in order for science to be relevant, but too many people buy into the claim that religious belief cannot be tested. In fact, it makes all sorts of empirical claims. For example, it has claimed throughout history to explain the origin of species. Evolution has proven that belief wrong, and that weakens the case for belief in God. Just about all believers know this, however much they would like to deny it. That is precisely why there is so much political (but not scientific) controversy surrounding the scientific theory of evolution. You don't see quite the same furor over the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun, but that once caused just as much controversy.

 

[Thief]

I agree with polyhedral. Theology has to make coherent testable claims in order for science to be relevant, but too many people buy into the claim that religious belief cannot be tested. In fact, it makes all sorts of empirical claims. For example, it has claimed throughout history to explain the origin of species. Evolution has proven that belief wrong, and that weakens the case for belief in God. Just about all believers know this, however much they would like to deny it. That is precisely why there is so much political (but not scientific) controversy surrounding the scientific theory of evolution. You don't see quite the same furor over the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun, but that once caused just as much controversy.

I happen to believe in evolution.
God did it.

Just as science is allowed to tweak it's axioms.....
so do I.

 

[Copernicus]

I happen to believe in evolution.
God did it.

Or not. The theory does not need to make reference to God, so the burden of proof is on you.

Just as science is allowed to tweak it's axioms.....
so do I.

What "axiom" do you think you are tweaking? All you are doing is making an unsupported claim that has no empirical significance. Science can only make empirical claims. Hence, no reference to God.

 

[Thief]

Or not. The theory does not need to make reference to God, so the burden of proof is on you.

Nay...faith requires no proof.

What "axiom" do you think you are tweaking? All you are doing is making an unsupported claim that has no empirical significance. Science can only make empirical claims. Hence, no reference to God.

And yet, science is the primary argument for denial.

Say something scientific...as if absolute.

 

[Copernicus]

And yet, science is the primary argument for denial.

No. Occam's Razor is that. Science isn't in the business of denying untestable claims.

Say something scientific...as if absolute.

What scientists repeatedly deny is that their claims are absolute. Everyone knows that empirical claims are always deniable in principle. So why do you keep making this false claim that science makes absolute claims?

 

[Thief]

No. Occam's Razor is that. Science isn't in the business of denying untestable claims.


What scientists repeatedly deny is that their claims are absolute. Everyone knows that empirical claims are always deniable in principle. So why do you keep making this false claim that science makes absolute claims?

You've actually stated both sides of the coin.

Science cannot deny God.
And yet 'scientific' people argue as if they can.

 

[Copernicus]

You've actually stated both sides of the coin.

Science cannot deny God.
And yet 'scientific' people argue as if they can.

Your generalization is false, and you are not paying attention. 'Scientific' people are not atheists. They are people who practice science. Some are religious and happy to deny that science has anything at all to say about belief in gods. Others take the position that religious claims are empirical claims. Miracles are physical events that are subject to scientific investigation. Take the "miracle" of the Shroud of Turin, for example. Science can determine its age and has done so. It is a fake that was produced during the Middle Ages. Science can test the biblical claim that the Earth is no older than 10000 years. It has found that the Earth is more like 4.5 billion years old. Science can test whether there was a worldwide biblical flood. There has never been one. Science can test whether the sun moves relative to the Earth, rising in the east and setting in the west. It does not.

Now, as to the empirical claim that God exists, every testable claim surrounding the existence of God fails. There are none that have survived scientific scrutiny. That makes it a failed empirical claim. You can stubbornly ignore the facts and cling to the illusion that science has nothing to say about the existence of God, but it actually has been saying things about gods for centuries.

BTW, you might be interested in Victor J Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows that God does not Exist. Stenger is one of those 'scientific people' that you complain about. His opinion is not shared by all 'scientific people', but it is worth considering.

 

[gnostic]

So....placing the word 'science' in front of the word 'theory'....
takes away the words.... explanation...speculation...and conjecture....

No.

You are still belaboring on what science called HYPOTHESIS, which is unverified or unsubstantiated speculation and conjecture. Hypothesis is either unproven or yet to be proven explanation.

Scientists AND SCIENCE, make the distinction between hypothesis and theory.

Theory on the other hand, and IN SCIENCE, mind you, have already been verified with number of evidences and number of tests that support the theory. Theory also explain those tests or evidences. Theory also explain the law, as well as any equations that go with this law.

You know that Einstein's law on General Relativity. The law is a short statement that sum up the theory, but the theory explain the law in details.

Similar, Newton's laws on gravity and forces are only short statements. But the theory behind the law explain the whole things about forces and gravity in more detail.

Darwin's theory merely expand the explanation on natural selection, such as his statement on survival of the fittest. A lot more detail about the survival of the fittest is explained in his theory. That his theory are still relevant in biology today, demonstrate that the theory deals with fact than mere hypothesis, because of centuries of evidences that have supported his theory.

You do know that survival of the fittest have nothing to do with being the strongest or the most intelligence don't you? It has to do with the ability to adapt to changes. This is what theists and creationists confused by Darwin's statement about natural selection.

In any case, there are far more evidences that support Darwin's evolution than Newton's law on gravity or Einstein's general relativity. Einstein didn't have the amount of evidences to support his theory than Darwin's. Biologists have returned to Galapagos islands where most of Darwin's evidences come from, to examine the biological evidences in the last century, and Darwin was not wrong, as far the international science community are concerned.

What concern creationists is that Darwin's theory doesn't put GOD in his equation, but if you look at all non-evolutionary sciences, whether it be biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, geology, vulcanology, medicine, astronomy, computer science, etc, none of them of include God in their respective theories.

1. So why should bl#@dy god be included in evolution?
2. Do you see any non-evolutionary science that include God in its theory?
3. Do God anyway effect our natural world?
4. If so, can you prove it (eg God's involvement)?

This is "science and religion debates" forum, and since we are dealing with theory in science, then you should use the relevant scientific definition on THEORY rather than some limited general dictionaries.

And this is where you are not smart. Webster dictionary....Grow up!

If you want to know about God, are you fully satisfied with the definitions found in the Webster Dictionary? Does these definitions explanations explain everything about god? No?

If not, then why do you limit THEORY with the Webster Dictionary or some other dictionaries?

 

[Thief]

No.

You are still belaboring on what science called HYPOTHESIS, which is unverified or unsubstantiated speculation and conjecture. Hypothesis is either unproven or yet to be proven explanation.

Scientists AND SCIENCE, make the distinction between hypothesis and theory.

Theory on the other hand, and IN SCIENCE, mind you, have already been verified with number of evidences and number of tests that support the theory. Theory also explain those tests or evidences. Theory also explain the law, as well as any equations that go with this law.

You know that Einstein's law on General Relativity. The law is a short statement that sum up the theory, but the theory explain the law in details.

Similar, Newton's laws on gravity and forces are only short statements. But the theory behind the law explain the whole things about forces and gravity in more detail.

Darwin's theory merely expand the explanation on natural selection, such as his statement on survival of the fittest. A lot more detail about the survival of the fittest is explained in his theory. That his theory are still relevant in biology today, demonstrate that the theory deals with fact than mere hypothesis, because of centuries of evidences that have supported his theory.

You do know that survival of the fittest have nothing to do with being the strongest or the most intelligence don't you? It has to do with the ability to adapt to changes. This is what theists and creationists confused by Darwin's statement about natural selection.

In any case, there are far more evidences that support Darwin's evolution than Newton's law on gravity or Einstein's general relativity. Einstein didn't have the amount of evidences to support his theory than Darwin's. Biologists have returned to Galapagos islands where most of Darwin's evidences come from, to examine the biological evidences in the last century, and Darwin was not wrong, as far the international science community are concerned.

What concern creationists is that Darwin's theory doesn't put GOD in his equation, but if you look at all non-evolutionary sciences, whether it be biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, geology, vulcanology, medicine, astronomy, computer science, etc, none of them of include God in their respective theories.

1. So why should bl#@dy god be included in evolution?
2. Do you see any non-evolutionary science that include God in its theory?
3. Do God anyway effect our natural world?
4. If so, can you prove it (eg God's involvement)?

This is "science and religion debates" forum, and since we are dealing with theory in science, then you should use the relevant scientific definition on THEORY rather than some limited general dictionaries.

And this is where you are not smart. Webster dictionary....Grow up!

If you want to know about God, are you fully satisfied with the definitions found in the Webster Dictionary? Does these definitions explanations explain everything about god? No?

If not, then why do you limit THEORY with the Webster Dictionary or some other dictionaries?

Limits are appropriate in debate.
I see a continual use of ....'science'....as if God...isn't 'needed'.

When you return to the theological debates....mind you....

Science cannot disprove god.
That you have evidence to support your.....'explanations'....
does not rule out God.

God did it.

And the limits of a definition belong to Webster's.
I sure they were careful and deliberate.

That way, no one takes a use beyond it's proper context.
Theory does not have 'proof' in it's definition.

 

[PolyHedral]

Science cannot disprove god.

It can render him redundant, though.

 

[Frank Merton]

I haven't read the entire thread, but from what I did read it does not seem to me that anyone here has it quite right.

A "theory" is neither a "fact" (datum) nor a "law" (an unfortunate Victorian word that implies a lawgiver and is no longer applied to new scientific discoveries).

A "theory" is an interpretation, a story, a picture -- a framework within which we can feel we understand the facts. Facts are observations (in biology, things like fossils, the geographic distribution of species, patterns of behavior, genetic and anatomical similarities, and so on. All this stuff makes an overwhelming mess if one doesn't have an interpretative framework.

Human beings want more than just to "know." We also want to understand, and theory is the structure of understanding. Evolutionary theory enables us to put living things on the Earth in perspective, seeing how they are related and how what they do all pertains to the necessities of their existence.

 

[gnostic]

Science cannot disprove god.
That you have evidence to support your.....'explanations'....
does not rule out God.

God did it.

I see the lack of evidences of God's existence to be as evidence that he doesn't exist. Until he does appear than I would him as not existing. God is nothing more than imagination, belief, at worse, delusion of the person.

I am sure that you would apply to same person who believe in ghost, fairy, unicorn, ghoul and goblin, vampire, werewolf, elf, etc, to be either imaginative or delusional. Until there are evidences for their existence, then such creature don't exist. Do you think any of these creature exist beyond the literary imagination?

And for that same reason I have applied the same rule to god against ghost, fairy, and other imaginary or literary beings, those that I have already listed in the last paragraph.

 

[Frank Merton]

I am sure that you would apply to same person who believe in ghost, fairy, unicorn, ghoul and goblin, vampire, werewolf, elf, etc, to be either imaginative or delusional. Until there are evidences for their existence, then such creature don't exist. Do you think any of these creature exist beyond the literary imagination?

Two problems with this:

First, the idea of God is different from the idea of something like a ghost or fairy.

Second, I think you misapply the rule-of-thumb that the affirmative assertion must provide proof.

On the first problem, the amount of evidence we demand before we believe varies from idea to idea, depending on our predilections, history, experience, and so on. Personally I find the idea of God more believable as a possible unproved first principle than most of the other things you list: it makes some aspects of the universe we find ourselves in a lot more comfortable. As a working theory God makes more sense, at least on the surface, than a no-God theory. To me atheism takes a deeper understanding; theism comes easily and intuitively.

On the second problem, that there is no proof of something tells me almost nothing, since nothing, except within a circumscribed logical framework, can ever have proof. That there is evidence of God should not be doubted -- assertions otherwise are almost ludicrous. The issue is not whether or not there is evidence for God, but whether or not the evidence is convincing. I think the person who asserts there is no God has just as much burden to provide convincing evidence as does the person who asserts He exists.

 

[Copernicus]

Frank, thanks for your comment. I think that you may not have quite followed the point of the OP, which is that creationists have equivocated on the meaning of "theory". The word "theory" has at least two distinct meanings in English (but actually more than two).

Two problems with this:

First, the idea of God is different from the idea of something like a ghost or fairy.

There is actually more than one concept of God, as you yourself noted. And the concept of God bears some similarities to mythical ghosts and fairies. For one thing, God has powers that would be considered "magic" in those beings.

Second, I think you misapply the rule-of-thumb that the affirmative assertion must provide proof.

I think that he applies it correctly, because Thief is not defending against positive atheism. He is making the positive claim and therefore ought to defend it with evidence.

On the first problem, the amount of evidence we demand before we believe varies from idea to idea, depending on our predilections, history, experience, and so on. Personally I find the idea of God more believable as a possible unproved first principle than most of the other things you list: it makes some aspects of the universe we find ourselves in a lot more comfortable. As a working theory God makes more sense, at least on the surface, than a no-God theory. To me atheism takes a deeper understanding; theism comes easily and intuitively.

Theists will often defend deism when it is clear that they mean to defend theism. It would be a mistake to accept the definition of "God" as nothing more than "an unproved first principle", which, after all, could just be an inanimate force. Nobody worships an abstract "unproved first principle" in churches on Sundays, and it is the object of that worship that we are discussing when we use the word "God".

On the second problem, that there is no proof of something tells me almost nothing, since nothing, except within a circumscribed logical framework, can ever have proof. That there is evidence of God should not be doubted -- assertions otherwise are almost ludicrous. The issue is not whether or not there is evidence for God, but whether or not the evidence is convincing. I think the person who asserts there is no God has just as much burden to provide convincing evidence as does the person who asserts He exists.

I agree completely with your point that the real question is whether there is convincing evidence. However, I maintain that those who claim "there is no evidence" really mean their words to be understood as "convincing evidence" or "reasonable evidence". Usually, everyone has that understanding, but it is always better to be clearer.

 

[Skeptisch]

I agree completely with your point that the real question is whether there is convincing evidence.

Scientific evidence should be convincing to everyone. Why is the existence of an unnatural God not a scientific hypothesis like any other?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Scientific evidence should be convincing to everyone. Why is the existence of an unnatural God not a scientific hypothesis like any other?

Because science deals with the natural.
Not un-, or super-natural.

 

[gnostic]

First, the idea of God is different from the idea of something like a ghost or fairy.

Is it?

They all come from trying to explain the subconscious or unconscious yearning of something magical or mystical to explain natural phenomena. They all rely on transmissions of belief, whether it be through oral tradition or written literature. They all rely on the fear of the unknown, which to me are baseless superstition. They all rely on faith instead of evidences to support their belief.

No, Frank. It is the same thing.

On the second problem, that there is no proof of something tells me almost nothing, since nothing, except within a circumscribed logical framework, can ever have proof. That there is evidence of God should not be doubted -- assertions otherwise are almost ludicrous.

There is lack of evidences on the unicorn and ghost, the same as that of no testable evidences on God, angels or demons. We only rely on testimonies of people, something that can't be tested. To me, it is simply matter of wild imagination or delusion. They want to believe so badly that for them it is true is hardly evidences of God's existence.

Me, I am what you might call an "empirical agnostic". Evidences first, before any belief. I prefer to know with certainty than simply believing in something without evidences.

I used to be strong agnostic, when I was in my late teens or early 20s, even though back then I didn't know what agnosticism. I was ready to try anything and everything. I was not only reading the bible at that time, but exploring the occult, psychic phenomena, aliens, Atlantis and other things. But reality have always kept me from actually believing any of these fascinating subjects, as the years passed, I accept it for what it was a phase of trying to trying to understand the unknown and finding myself.

Don't get me wrong, I am still fascinated by these subjects, including religion, and I am still interested in mythology and folklore but for me, they are not real as far as I was concern.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

I haven't read the entire thread, but from what I did read it does not seem to me that anyone here has it quite right.

Pardon?
Did you actually READ the OP, Frank ?

If so, what did I get wrong?
If not, how can you say no-one has got it quite right?

A "theory" is neither a "fact" (datum) nor a "law" (an unfortunate Victorian word that implies a lawgiver and is no longer applied to new scientific discoveries).

I didn't say it was, nor did anyone else AFAIK.
What a pity you didn't bother to read the thread, or the OP.

A "theory" is an interpretation, a story, a picture -- a framework within which we can feel we understand the facts. Facts are observations (in biology, things like fossils, the geographic distribution of species, patterns of behavior, genetic and anatomical similarities, and so on. All this stuff makes an overwhelming mess if one doesn't have an interpretative framework.

Like I said many time - a scientific theory is an EXPLANATION for observed facts.

As distinct from the common usage meaning "speculation".

Evolution is a FACT of nature.
And there is a theory to explain those facts.

Human beings want more than just to "know." We also want to understand, and theory is the structure of understanding. Evolutionary theory enables us to put living things on the Earth in perspective, seeing how they are related and how what they do all pertains to the necessities of their existence.

Hmmm... you used the phrase "Evolutionary theory".

How do the facts of evolution fit in?


Iasion