Hi erikp and welcome to the forum,
quote:
Science and religion do not overlap and may not overlap.
That would be nice, I agree. Unfortunately, religion has always delved into matters that are better left to the scientific method and it continues to do so.
quote:
Only observations from reality have the status: proven true.
I disagree somewhat. How do we know that the observer is doing his job properly? Nonetheless, I would say that observations are as close as we can ever practically get to "proven true", so this is a very small point. Once something has been reliably and repeatedly observed, it is reasonable to say that it is proven true.
quote:
If a scientific theorem has the status "proven", it means that it does not cover any possible future observations. That would simply make the scientific theorem useless for any practical purpose.
I agree with the first sentence, but it does not describe the scientific method as it is practised. The second sentence is just plain wrong.
No scientific theory is ever considered "proven". One might describe an observation as proven, but not the theory that underlies it. Science holds all theories as tentative explanations, pending potential future correction. This is precisely because of the problems that you describe; potential for future falsification.
To suggest that a theory must be tentative is only sensible. To then suggest that because of this, no theory can ever be of practical use is absurd. The Theory of General Relativity is open to future falsification, yet it is used very successfully in Global Positioning Systems. In what way is this not practical? The germ theory of disease is subject to falsification, yet it has saved millions of lives and improved standards of living worldwide. In what way is this not practical?
quote:
Popper and Gdel also demonstrate that every scientific theorem that is applicable to an unending stream of future observations, will eventually prove to be false. There are --always-- observations possible that will sooner or later contradict the theorem. The status of every scientific theorem currently in use is simply: false (but hard to prove so).
(Emphasis mine.)
First of all,
all theories are subject to future falsification, every last one of them, including ones we haven't thought of yet. No scientific theory is considered "case closed" or "proven". Thus, the phrase "every scientific theorem that is applicable to an unending stream of future observations" can be effectively shortened to "every scientific theorem".
Throughout your exchange with PaulK, you have repeatedly claimed that your argument is directly taken from Popper and Gdel. Now, I admit to being only marginally familiar with Popper's work and I am pretty much unfamiliar with Gdel. I am nonetheless sceptical that they really say quite what you seem to think they do.
Perhaps you could cite cases where they make the argument you claim they do, especially with regard to the bolded sections above.
quote:
The only theorems that can be true, are theorems for which it is impossible to make observations.
Look, I'm assuming that neither of us is a solipsist, so we can both agree that there is an objective reality that exists regardless of our attempts to understand it, right? A theory that accurately describes reality would be correct. Scientific theories attempt to describe observed reality as accurately as is possible, whilst still acknowledging the possibility that they are wrong or incomplete (tentativity). Observation is the foundation of this approach.
A theory for which no observation can be made is not a theory. It is, at best, just an idle notion.
quote:
The status of such theorem would be: unproven true.
Why? You don't say, you merely assert that this is the case. Given that it is, by definition, unprovable, I would say that it is impossible to justify calling it true. How would you know?
By your logic the following statement is true; "We are being watched by the invisible and undetectable eyes of the machine elves from the other side."
You can't observe the machine elves, so they can't be proved. Thus, machine elf theory is true.
Do you see how silly this is?
quote:
Science is therefore false, but hard to prove so; but sooner or later every scientific statement will turn out to be an error [Popper, Gdel].
Again, I would be very interested to see exactly where Messrs Popper and Gdel claim this.
quote:
Religion, however, is true, but impossible to prove so.
Two contradictory unprovable statements could not both be true. To regard two such statements as both being true is to embrace absurdity. In the real world, two mutually contradictory statements cannot, by definition, both be true. In your world, they both have to be considered be true.
Seriously, do you not see how silly this is?
Be honest. Do you actually possess the ability to consciously believe two mutually contradictory statements at once? I sure don't, nor would I want to.
quote:
In my impression, both the Bible and the Koran, manage to stay clear of making unproven false statements (that is, scientific statements) by staying clear of phrasing statements that could be contradicted by future observations.
Oh really? From Matthew 13;
13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds
The mustard seed is not the smallest seed. It's just not. There are poppy seeds in my kitchen that are smaller. The smallest seeds are, I believe, those of orchids, which cannot be seen with the naked eye. This is a falsifiable claim and it has been falsified. By your standards, that means that Jesus' parable was not religious.
Of course the parable is religious , as is the source, the New Testament.
quote:
Religion may only contain proven true (facts, observations) and unproven/unprovable true statements (religious imperatives).
Unfortunately, religion stubbornly hangs on to falsified notions. They litter the Bible. One need read no further than Genesis 1:2 to find an entirely falsified notion, yet Genesis must be considered religious under any sensible definition.
I think that you have slightly misunderstood how science and especially tentativity work. You have taken this misunderstanding and run with it, far in the wrong direction and it has led you to some rather strange conclusions.
I think a good start for you in pursuing this would be to provide evidence that Popper and Gdel really say what you think they do. Personally, I have my doubts.
Mutate and Survive.
"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
™ Version 4.2
