(March 18, 2009 at 6:49 am)Tiberius Wrote: The whole concept of God isn't a scientific concept, even most theists would argue that. Therefore it is in the realms of philosophy, where it has always been. Sure, arguments from design could be used, but that doesn't make it a scientific debate.
Well that is where you and I disagree then...because I do not believe religion or God is outside the realm of science...
E.G: I do not subscribe to NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) - Stephen J. Gould's notion that science and religion do not overlap...they are about two different things, that science cannot say anything about the existence of God...
I do not subscribe to this view because I believe with Dawkins that if God exists and has any effect on the universe and the natural world whatsoever then he cannot possibly steer clear of science...and even just by existing - being part of the universe...that is still an existence claim and thus still a scientific one..I agree with Dawkins that a universe without a God would be a fundamentally different kind of universe than a universe WITH one.... - whichever version of the universe we are currently living in...be it Godless or Godly - the alternative universe would have to be different.
From the Stephen J. Gould wikipedia page, the part about NOMA - and here is Dawkins view on it: "Richard Dawkins has criticized the NOMA principle on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, steer clear of the material scientific matters that Gould considers outside religion's scope. Dawkins argues that "[a] universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. [...] Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." These "existence claims" include miracles such as the Catholic Assumption of Mary: whether Mary's body decayed when she died or was physically lifted to Heaven is a material fact, and thus outside the moral magisterium to which NOMA would limit religion. [51]"
And the link to NOMA on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlap....28NOMA.29
So I think God is a scientific claim as well as a philosophical one and religions are basically just bad sciences:I think religion is not only a philosophy but also bad failed sciences of the past....
So I agree with Dawkins here...I do not see why God isn't an scientific claim like any other existence claim...when a universe without a God would be different to a universe with one....and an intervening theist God would have even more effect on the natural world and the universe...they would not simply just set it up! They come into contact with the natural world - that effects science. Its a scientific claim as well as a philosophical one.
Unless I have misunderstood..?
EvF
