h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

toxx,

No I'd fully support research into that area. I dislike elevating any area of belief/knowledge so that it is "untouchable", as religion to frequently is. I don't want to see science become as untouchable as religion all too frequently is.

OK, fair enough, RMan. I don't really accept that the electronic manipulations would be any different, even if the theory were different/wrong. OK, you are free to take the route of pragmatism, which isn't going to have much of a purchase on theology.

toxx

"I don't really accept that the electronic manipulations would be any different, even if the theory were different/wrong"

There is a classic example of a "wrong" theory giving usable results: the Ptolemaic model of the solar system.

I put "wrong" in quotes because although the Kepler model is more elegant, it's still open to correction.

RMan. Almost a kind of simulpost! I've just mentioned Kepler over on the GFF thread!

toxx

Hot topic!

I guess the upshot of my comparison is, the theory doesn't necessarily change the manipulations but a better theory makes more or more accurate manipulations possible.

RMan. Or do more refined manipulations lead to improvements in the theory?

toxx

Sure. Two-way thing.

Theory of General Relativity was later confirmed by experimental results. Can the God theory be confirmed, or just asserted as being logical? What kind of evidence would count? What kind could be sought?

RMan. The sheer existence of anything is evidence. Let's be Popperian. If we could show that the universe is infinitely old, then the 'God theory' would be more doubtful.

toxx

Yes I agree with you that the existence of anything is an unfathomable mystery, than which no greater mystery need be sought.

But God forfend I should ever be Popperian.

I tried reading "The Logic of Scientific Development" as a student; his argument appeared circular to me. "Science is reliable because it is, well, um, scentific" seemed to be the drift.

RMan. May I recommend 'Conjecture and Refutation'. I don't believe that anyone has succeded in defining 'science'. I've argued with authors of books on the subject. They like to say that science is 'rational'. It's even harder to define 'rational', but they balk and waffle at that point!

toxx

Ah yes that's me all right: balk and waffle.

RMan. I can see points for Popper's view and points for confirmation theory and a Bayesian approach. I wouldn't want to take sides. Call that my version of 'balk and waffle' if you like.

toxx

I would say science is empirical.

The question is, can theology be empirical?

Ayer and many logical positivists clearly believed not. Hick believed so, but only numinously so.

If one says that emotions are Humean "impressions" and therefore experiences, and if one counts God as experienced emotively, then I suppose one could say that theology could be empirical.

That's a lot of ifs though.

Nare. Natural theology is empirical. It's based on observations about the universe, which doesn't exclude much! The only purely analytical bit I can recall is the 'ontological argument'.

toxx

Ah yes, true.

But it's a bit of a leap, isn't it, to go from "I like stuff" to "God made it nice"? It's not an actual experience of God, it's an experience of the universe. The "God" bit is added on by reasoning.

Roadie. It's more a case of "There is stuff"; "How come there is stuff?". Hmmm, can't just have been made by other stuff!

toxx

Male Researcher, Philosopher, Buddist, Marxist-Leninist, Epistemologist, Sociologist, Idealist 217777, and i've already posted several phrases.

toxx,

It's true. I'm just saying it's a leap from "how come there is stuff?" to "This supernatural dude, who is like invisible and everywhere.... nah you can't experience him, he's just /there/, yeah and he can do this really cool sh1t". Still, humans understand organic. Not quantum mechanic. So that's why, I reckon at least, we created God.