Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Did Dawkins really claim that god-did-it is a scientific hypothesis?
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 11:33:21 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 133
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <rt1j3khtg8bp40g21rnqudeneni16qvnas@4ax.com>
References: <101as3j$409r$2@dont-email.me> <b2274542-41bf-4fcb-a73e-258ce8b3a016@gmail.com> <3426523d84d2f586db7358931b34f833@www.novabbs.com> <tnri3kliab61fje1ui1s21mogbg1jep2dh@4ax.com> <101c03k$e6m0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="23076"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eHwQu6l+Dsyeb2zR4LDDXMUW47A=
Bytes: 8886

On Fri, 30 May 2025 11:08:51 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 30/05/2025 09:47, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:08:47 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com
>> (LDagget) wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 30 May 2025 4:07:46 +0000, erik simpson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/29/25 4:54 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> Dawkins answered kindly that belief in a designer is more than a mere
>>>>> subjective response: "You appear to be a theist," he told her. "You
>>>>> appear to believe in some kind of higher power. Now, I think that the
>>>>> hypothesis of theism is the most exciting scientific hypothesis you
>>>>> could possibly hold." Hold that thought in your mind.
>>>> Struggling through his wikipedia entry, it seems that Dawkins indeed
>>>> does support the notion that as a scientific hypothesis, God is
>>>> legitimate.  A fair number of physicists would agree. Religious
>>>> superstructures such as the Biblical miracles, visions, etc. don't count
>>>> as hypotheses.
>>>
>>> Seems to me that the proper perspective is that just about anything
>>> could be a scientific hypothesis if the terms involved were
>>> defined with sufficient precision, and the asserted hypothesis
>>> was in some sense amenable to being objectively tested.
>>>
>>> That's a bit sneaky because defining __god__ has been historically
>>> problematic. Most definitions put limits on the thing being
>>> defined, some sense of where it begins and ends, how to distinguish
>>> what it is and isn't. This seems somehow connected with the odd
>>> categories like omnipresent and omnipotent that some would attempt
>>> to use. It has an air of resisting a definition but for a
>>> hypothesis to be usefully considered scientific that doesn't work.
>>>
>>> If asked to test the "god did it" hypothesis, it seems like we
>>> would need some clarity on the __it__ part and some of those
>>> how, when, and where type questions specified somewhat.
>>> Otherwise, how do you go about testing the hypothesis.
>>>
>>> If you can't test it, it simply can't be a scientific hypothesis.
>>> Philosophers can hedge over distinctions between "can in
>>> principle test" versus "can in practice test". I'd weigh in
>>> on the side of 'not scientific' until you can do it in practice
>>> with an added label of __potentially__ for the not in practice set.
>> 
>> Is that not moving closer to theory than hypothesis?
>
> From wiktionary
>
>"(sciences) A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed 
>facts or phenomena and correctly predicts new facts or phenomena not 
>previously observed, or which sets out the laws and principles of 
>something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, 
>experiment etc."

And their definition of 'hypothesis' is 

"(sciences) A tentative conjecture explaining an observation,
phenomenon or scientific problem and that can be tested by further
observation, investigation and/or experimentation."

That's why I was questioning LD's suggestion that something can't be
treated as a scientific hypothesis unless you can test it right now.

>
>or to make a stab at it myself
>
>a coherent model explaining diverse observations

I'd agree but slighly modify it to *potentially* explaining.

>
>There are exceptions in usage, such as String Theory - I think this is 
>bleed through from mathematical usage. Note that there are people who 
>argue that String Theory is not scientific.
>
>I think that the concept of a research program is helpful.
>
>String Theory is a research program which has failed to deliver (other 
>than a body of mathematics).
>
>Evolutionary psychology is in principle a research program. That 
>evolution has had an influence on human behaviour is a more than 
>plausible hypothesis. But evolutionary psychologists in general lack a 
>necessary scepticism about their supplementary hypothesis, and even the 
>overriding hypothesis is questionable - could not evolution have handed 
>over control of behaviour to the more labile (and therefore more 
>adaptable) culture? The evolution of cultural control of behaviour would 
>invalidate the underpinnings of the research programme. I'm ambivalent 
>on the scientific nature of evolutionary psychology - I don't think that 
>the hypothesis is inherently incapable of providing insights, but much 
>of the practice seems to be in the cargo-cult science zone.

I think the underlying problem is that what we have figured out about
evolution explains so much that some people jump to the conclusion
that it *must* explain everything.

>
>Intelligent Design could have been a research program, albeit one I 
>would have low expectations of (lower than evolutionary psychology). The 
>movement might even have had expectations of being one, but if it did 
>they failed to put in the work. Intelligent Design is instead a 
>religiously motivated political movement with a strategy of attacking 
>the theory of evolution.
>
>Some people would exclude the supernatural from the scope of science. I 
>disagree on this point; all science requires is statistical regularity 
>of behaviour, i.e. some degree of predictability.
>
>So God is not a priori excluded from science. On the other hand to bring 
>God within the scope of science may require concessions that the 
>religious may not wish to make. As a practical matter, as an ignostic I 
>think that God as a concept does not give us enough purchase on which to 
>base a scientific hypothesis.
>> 
>>>
>>> Odd thing that some would consider not being a scientific
>>> hypothesis as a challenge to the ultimate truth of their hypothesis.
>>> But that is dubious thinking.
>> 
>> Those who think that way are usually those who feel their religious
>> beliefs are challenged by science. That gives them 3 options:
>> 
>> 1) Rethink their religious beliefs to accommodate the science.
>> 
>> 2) Try to argue that their beliefs are actually just another
>> scientific hypothesis.
>> 
>> 3) Dismiss the science
>> 
>> ID'ers simply can't face up to option 1 so they go for a mixture of
>> options 2 and 3.
>>