INTRODUCTION
Testability is usually regarded as a necessary condition for something to count as a scientific explanation. Untestable explanations are pseudo-science at best. In addition, a working hypothesis that can be included in the pool of live options amongst competitors should also be independently testable. That is, it should be capable of being corroborated through a process of testing.
Testability is usually regarded as a necessary condition for something to count as a scientific explanation. Untestable explanations are pseudo-science at best. In addition, a working hypothesis that can be included in the pool of live options amongst competitors should also be independently testable. That is, it should be capable of being corroborated through a process of testing.
THEISTIC EXPLANATIONS SO FAR LACK TESTABILITY
So far, according to Dawes, no theist has been able to show that theistic explanations are testable in the desired manner:
“What the theist needs, what she must seek to corroborate, is a hypothesis of the form “there is a God who will G,” where G is a posited divine goal. So if the theist wishes to show that her proposed explanation is testable, she must do more than show that explanations appealing to a divine agent can cover a wide range of events. She must show that this particular proposed explanation can cover a wide range of events…Could this be done? I have no idea, since I know of no theists who have sought to corroborate their proposed explanations in this way…I have suggested that Richard Swinburne’s account of theistic explanations is, perhaps, the best available. But even Swinburne’s proposed explanations lack empirical content, since…They fail to spell out just why God would do what he is alleged to have done.”[1]
AXIARCHISM TO THE RESCUE
I believe it is relatively simple to set up the theistic hypothesis to be one with a high degree of empirical content that is independently testable once one realizes that theism entails axiarchism. Axiarchism is the idea that reality should be intrinsically structured toward the positive, or optimal realization of moral, intellectual, and aesthetic values. In other words, because God’s perfect goodness entails axiarchism, theism entails that reality should be value-generating. Because of this, theism makes several independently testable predictions about facts other than those it purports to explain. There is also a chance that these predictions will turn out to be false given the idea of a value-less universe which is predicted by naturalism, atheism, and the hypothesis of indifference. Or to be more colloquial, in answering the question: Do we live in a value-generating universe? The answer has to be ‘Yes’ on theism, while it could be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on naturalism, atheism, and Hypothesis of Indifference.
CONCLUSION
Since theism entails axiarchism, it has a high degree of empirical content, and is therefore, highly testable.
[1] Greg Dawes, Theism and Explanation, Kindle Ed. 117-118.
So far, according to Dawes, no theist has been able to show that theistic explanations are testable in the desired manner:
“What the theist needs, what she must seek to corroborate, is a hypothesis of the form “there is a God who will G,” where G is a posited divine goal. So if the theist wishes to show that her proposed explanation is testable, she must do more than show that explanations appealing to a divine agent can cover a wide range of events. She must show that this particular proposed explanation can cover a wide range of events…Could this be done? I have no idea, since I know of no theists who have sought to corroborate their proposed explanations in this way…I have suggested that Richard Swinburne’s account of theistic explanations is, perhaps, the best available. But even Swinburne’s proposed explanations lack empirical content, since…They fail to spell out just why God would do what he is alleged to have done.”[1]
AXIARCHISM TO THE RESCUE
I believe it is relatively simple to set up the theistic hypothesis to be one with a high degree of empirical content that is independently testable once one realizes that theism entails axiarchism. Axiarchism is the idea that reality should be intrinsically structured toward the positive, or optimal realization of moral, intellectual, and aesthetic values. In other words, because God’s perfect goodness entails axiarchism, theism entails that reality should be value-generating. Because of this, theism makes several independently testable predictions about facts other than those it purports to explain. There is also a chance that these predictions will turn out to be false given the idea of a value-less universe which is predicted by naturalism, atheism, and the hypothesis of indifference. Or to be more colloquial, in answering the question: Do we live in a value-generating universe? The answer has to be ‘Yes’ on theism, while it could be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on naturalism, atheism, and Hypothesis of Indifference.
CONCLUSION
Since theism entails axiarchism, it has a high degree of empirical content, and is therefore, highly testable.
[1] Greg Dawes, Theism and Explanation, Kindle Ed. 117-118.
RSS Feed
