FIRST
FIRST
A theory in science is about explaining and must be backed up by
evidence. Theories have to build on and connect with other theories.
All theories are tested by working out what we must expect if the
theory is true. The power to predict then functions as a test.
A theory in science or a hypothesis can refer to something proven — not 100% proven but rather well-corroborated. Science always wants to know where it went wrong, which is why it never admits that proof is proof. Not all scientific theories are equally supported by the evidence.
Is God supported by scientific evidence? Is God a scientific hypothesis? Is the view that science is not about how the universe came to be, but is about the universe that exists, any good? Is science about presupposing there is a universe and not how a universe could come to be?
THE ARGUMENT
Religion says God is not a scientific hypothesis, for science is about the physical and God is not a physical being. [It thinks this is a great triumph, but it is not when you remember that not all theories need to be scientific theories.]
This claim fits Deism, not Theism. Deism is the notion that God brings a universe that is wound up to do its own thing like a clock into existence.
Theism, however, says God is more active than that.
So God, as in Deism, is not a scientific hypothesis.
God, as one who is involved in the universe and how it runs and
does miracles and intervenes to answer prayer, is a scientific
hypothesis.
We will not treat the argument that science sometimes argues that
the universe makes itself in some way. That argument calls both
Deism and Theism scientific theories.
Religion states that God is not a scientific theory, for it fears
science and knows there is a rift between science and itself.
The atheist does not necessarily claim that God is scientifically
disproven. If science were saying it, then the atheist is still not
saying it as an atheist. Science is.
What we should think of science
Have this disposition:
"Science and reason are methods. They protect the truth and us from errors and contradictions. We may not use them perfectly, but that is not their fault. Science and reason work, for they are right methods."
That is supposed to be a circular argument. But that is like saying that you feel something cold on the table, for your sense of touch says so, is arguing that, "My sense of touch is right, and I know it is right, for I feel the cold." It is not the same thing. Even if the cold is not there and it's an illusion, the fact remains you still feel cold. It is not a circle.
Science can test for God indirectly
How would science disprove God? As there are many versions of God, it certainly does disprove many of them. It would naturally have to regard the doctrine of a God that keeps babies healthy as false when they test a baby and find it is sick.
Religion says that science has no way of telling that God should not let a baby suffer because he might have a purpose that makes it necessary. But the notion of divine plans is theology, not science. It is telling science to keep out. Science has to decide that, not religion.
Yet religion says science is a gift from God. It is very strange if God sets up a faith to be his voice and it has to be told by science — as if science had nothing to do with God — to mind its own business.
The scientific method orders that we don't complicate things we do not need to complicate. That is why it will keep theological notions out. If a person were keeping his theology and his science separate, then what? He is still a danger to science in principle, for why is he not concentrating his energy on what is testable — science? The scientific method demands that persons who do not think science and testing come first be seen as a potential risk — persons to be avoided.
Therefore, science is, under the surface and sometimes openly, opposed to theology.
Evil
Religion sees evil as powerful and yet as an abstract — it is a mere
lack of a good that should be there and is not. It sets that in
opposition to the notion that evil is a malignant substance.
Science cannot take either side. It cannot test evil in the lab. So it undermines the notion, "A God of love may exist, for there is no reason to hold that he may have made evil. It is not a substance he can create."
Religion answers that science cannot call God evil, for science is not about good and evil. Science can be about well-being, and that matters more than any notions of good and evil.
God being turned into a scientific theory
A scientific theory/hypothesis is something that is proven, but it is called a theory/hypothesis because science has to always be open to new light. Even when something is proven, i.e., well-corroborated, science has to hold on to a little scepticism — this is to avoid anybody thinking they have proven things when they have not.
For God to be a scientific theory, you start with the notion that God is real — he is not an abstract concept. God has properties.
The next step is to decide what God would be like.
The next step is to decide if God just sits there or does anything.
Then we have to work out a way of testing the previous steps. Testing reality to see if it functions mechanically and is not guided or controlled by a God is the most important one.
The only way to test is by observation and by experimentation.
If, after all this, we find that everything can be explained without a God, we are justified in saying that science indicates we must not believe in God. Parsimony is an important principle in science. For example, if a dog gets an eye infection, science does a test and blames bacteria. It does not ask, "Did some supernormal force do it and make it look like the bacteria was the cause? Though the bacteria is there, could it be innocent?" Too many what-ifs means science gets nowhere.
It is said by some, "God is not a scientific hypothesis in the sense that you are allowed to deny his existence if the evidence is not good enough — the doctrine says that God can choose to hide his existence or work secretly." But a scientific hypothesis that is dogmatic is still regarded as a scientific hypothesis, even if unorthodox. And some theories do complain that they seem immune to refutation.
Science also uses hypotheses in the usual sense of the word as a "might be true." If you do science and you concentrate on the evidence-based hypotheses, you know that the non-evidence-based ones are out there. You just regard them as food for thought. So they are not dismissed. They are just made irrelevant. God is a scientific hypothesis in that sense. He is a might.
We ask that if the God theory does not belong in science the way we
need to breathe does, then does it belong as a might? Then a might
is not much good if a God is that which alone matters and to which
all things, including science, are to be 100% dedicated!
It is telling that, where God is concerned, scientists see no might
about it.
What would a Science God look like?
If nature is designed, then science can see that. All it has to say is that it is designed and let others suggest what the design is.
Design can be tested. But science does NOT say that nature is designed and is clear that it is NOT. Science is unjustly accused by believers of bias against God, but that is false — an experiment showing design does not necessarily mean there is a God.
A Science God then looks like nothing! Simple!
Why something rather than nothing?
Religion says science is about the how, and religion is about the why. Religion claims that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is not a scientific question. So God is not a scientific answer.
But the why there is something and how there is something are connected.
Plus, science and religion both ask the questions.
Religion says that God is not just a being but is what he does. He is his wisdom. He is his love. He is his creative power. So if you could show by scientific reasoning that there is no explanation for the existence of energy and matter but that it came from nowhere, then have you found God? It would say, "Yes, if the doctrine of creation by God is true. God's activity is the same as God himself. If the scientist won't call it God, it is still God. The word does not matter."
But science would simply assert that, though all things came from nothing, we don't know if they just popped into existence or if a God caused their existence.
Religion says that science can never show why there is something rather than nothing. But it is guilty of telling science what it cannot know. That is for science to decide. Religion is banning a scientific explanation and banning science from investigating that issue. It is a waste of time and money for science to investigate why the universe exists. If the universe came into existence for no reason and popped into existence, science is not allowed to know.
Religion fears that this may be the case and is trying to make people ignore science should it be scientifically verified. Religion gives platforms to those who say that there is no conflict between science and religion. It avoids explaining exactly and officially how science and religion can flourish together.
So religion, by teaching the existence of God, is sticking its nose into science.
FINALLY
God not only is not a scientific hypothesis but is incapable of becoming one.
Jerry Coyne: “Does it really matter whether what you believe about God is true — or don’t you care? If it does matter, then you must justify your beliefs; if it doesn’t, then you must justify belief itself.”
God, seen as a being who is involved in helping organise what is happening now, is anti-science. Belief in him is anti-science. Nobody tries to justify it because nobody can. Religion seeks to evade justification by lying about the boundaries of science.
APPENDIX: MAGIC
Big claims need big arguments. We are told that God miraculously making the universe from nothing is not magic. But no proof is given that it is not. I'd call it magic.
If magic is possible, then it makes as much sense to say the tooth fairy magicked the universe into existence as it does to say it was God. There is no reason to prefer one suggestion over the other.
Magic is undoubtedly the polar opposite of science.