Here’s an example:
The universe exists and the Big Bang happened. <--- this is based on a very strong theory*
1 - An atheist says : I don’t know why it exists. It just is.
2 - An agnostic atheist, let’s take the scientist Michio Kaku for example, will philosophize and says : There’s a multiverse that exists which creates new universes and Big Bangs randomly.
3 - A theist will say: God created this universe because it’s fine-tuned for life.
Who is mis-using science here? (sic)
Statement 1 says nothing about science/scientific method.
Statement 2 is based on scientific theories that are not particularly strong but worthy of consideration.
Statement 3 is nothing but speculation. There's no real science there.
So, taken in this context, none of these statements are misusing science.
The universe exists and the Big Bang happened. <--- this is based on a very strong theory*
1 - An atheist says : I don’t know why it exists. It just is.
2 - An agnostic atheist, let’s take the scientist Michio Kaku for example, will philosophize and says : There’s a multiverse that exists which creates new universes and Big Bangs randomly.
3 - A theist will say: God created this universe because it’s fine-tuned for life.
Who is mis-using science here? (sic)
Statement 1 says nothing about science/scientific method.
Statement 2 is based on scientific theories that are not particularly strong but worthy of consideration.
Statement 3 is nothing but speculation. There's no real science there.
So, taken in this context, none of these statements are misusing science.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller