[Vision2020] No Predictive Power In Belief in God?

[Ted Moffett]

Paul and others-

I was not suggesting "God" would tell anyone anything, nor that God is some
sort of "being" that we could comprehend.

How do you defend "predictive," scientifically, if you cannot prove that
induction gives reliable natural law?  All of your examples of predictive
(useful) power are questionable without proof of the principle of
induction.  Some assume an eternal unchanging "God" to explain the
continuity of natural law, God thus being the foundation that explains the
reliable predictive power of science, and the principle of induction.

Can the continuity of natural law be proved?  David Hume argued, and I hope
I am not mangling his analysis, that scientific induction and causality is a
very questionable method of demonstrating natural law.  Induction cannot be
proved, but only assumed.  Others would argue, as I stated, that God
provides the foundation of the continuity of natural law, for the
reliability of induction.  No God, no reason to assume that natural law, as
we think we understand it, will not change tomorrow.

Applying Occam's Razor, God can be avoided as an foundation for natural
law.  After all, God would be an unproven assumption that could be avoided
by just assuming induction is a valid principle, not "backed up" by God.  We
just assume that the universe functions a given way, and has continuity of
natural law at differing times and places, despite the fact we can imagine a
number of universes with shifting natural laws at different times and
places.  And there is empirical evidence of continuity of natural law,
though this does not prove the principle of induction.

But the point is, that we must assume principles, that science itself cannot
prove, to trust that our discoveries of natural law have reliable predictive
power for the future.  God can be one of those assumptions.  It is
difficult to show that induction is an a priori analytic logical truth.  Nor
can we without absurdity assume induction to prove itself.

No doubt my description of these issues is seriously lacking.  But the
problem of induction is a legitimate and difficult question to pose, that
advocates of a purely "materialistic" non-religious (whatever that means...)
scientific view of life and the universe sometimes gloss over.

This problem has vexed some of the greatest thinkers in human history:

Kant and Hume on Causality:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/
-----------------------
As far as the Big Bang requiring a cause before it happened, this may be a
meaningless question, as you suggested, given "time" as we understand it did
not exist.  We have more to learn on these questions, perhaps?  Super String
Theory...

I am reminded of what some think is the most fundamental philosophical
question, "Why is there something and not nothing?"  Answer?  Because the
chicken did cross the road!

http://philosophy.eserver.org/chicken.txt

------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett


On 6/28/08, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I mean that a belief in a deity is not predictive in a scientific sense.
>  "Knowing" there is a God doesn't tell you if a given stock will go up, if
> our sun will expand into a Red Giant in the next 100 years, whether there
> was ever life on Mars, or even if Obama will win this election.
> One of the measures of how good a scientific theory is is how useful it is.
>
> Maybe the wording "in any way" was a bit too harsh.  I suppose it's
> possible that God would tell someone how the Universe is put together and
> what the applicable laws are.
>
> Paul
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>> Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>>
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054696.html
>>
>> A deity, on the other hand, requires a whole bunch of different beliefs
>> for which there is no evidence, nor is it predictive in any way.
>> -----------------------
>> Is this an overstatement of the case?  Maybe you are speaking from a very
>> strict only scientific viewpoint, as an explanation for the Big Bang, in
>> which case I agree, with some hesitation, given that your statement might be
>> interpreted as closing the door on new empirical evidence that might support
>> the existence of a "deity," and offer scientifically predictive power.
>>  Furthermore, the first cause and/or design arguments for the existence of
>> God, as a source or foundation of our universe, some will argue, have a sort
>> of predictive power, offering a basis for the continuity of the laws of
>> nature (Hume's analysis of causality and induction negates "laws" of nature;
>> and if his analysis is valid, science has serious theoretical problems,
>> which cannot be solved by science, such as explaining why the laws of nature
>> should remain constant over time), though I do not think these arguments and
>> creationism are scientific theories.
>>  As an agnostic, I don't think the evidence for a creator "God" is
>> compelling or conclusive, nor do I find other metaphysical views of God
>> convincing, despite the problems that belief in God can solve.  But there is
>> the possibility of new evidence.  I if I truly thought there was no evidence
>> that could ever be discovered, for a God that pre-dated and caused the Big
>> Bang, and that the idea of God had no predictive power "in any way" (am I
>> making too much of this phrase in your statement?), I would be an atheist.
>>  Ted Moffett
>>
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080701/40ec7a5e/attachment.html