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

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.
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.