Quote:
|
But isn't the belief that all that exists can be explained by statements currently testable, regardless of its veracity, inherently untestable?
|
That is true. All you can really conclude is how well your model fits your observations. That is why science can never exclude the possibility of any god.
However, it's important to note that science only seeks to make explanations for NATURAL phenomena, things that are directly or indirectly testable. In this sense, science does not deny the existence of any god (inherently not testable), but can instead make them unnecessary. For instance, physics offers some rather elegant explanations on how electricity operates. One does not need God to explain the movement of electrons (though some might argue that they move simply because God or gods wills them to).
Whether or not you believe scientific theories accurately represent reality is a matter of faith. But this type of "faith" is very different from that involved in religion. Scientific theories are by definition provisional; you can't prove with absolute certainty that an apple will fall towards the ground the next time you let go of it. But it would be foolish to expect the apple somehow to rise, considering the enormous body of evidence suggesting the contrary. If one suddenly observes something that contradicts a previously accepted theory, the theory is either modified to accommodate the new data, or is scrapped entirely. Science draws upon a large body of evidence, instead of requiring faith even in the face of contrary evidence.
(In case I offended anyone, I didn't mean to. And I am not an atheist.)