Re: Did Dawkins really claim that god-did-it is a scientific hypothesis?

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."
or to make a stab at it myself
a coherent model explaining diverse observations
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.
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.
 

--
alias Ernest Major