This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/reviewing-creatorgate-is-god-a-scientific-proposition
Is God a Scientific Proposition? I say no, and offered reasons for my answer. What do you say, dear reader?
If God is empirically provable, then He is not who I thought He was. It doesn’t even make sense to me to say that God is a Scientific Proposition if the definition of science is looking at what happens in a petri dish and measuring the wavelengths of light from heavenly bodies and such.
If God can be contained, if it is possible to “wrap my mind around Him”, then He isn’t God to me. God is episcientific, metascientific. God’s handiwork is scientific, but it comes down to that basic premise. The philosophic question hinges on the premise one accepts. At some point the question of theism, pantheism, panentheism, atheism, agnosticism, whateverism must start with some basic premise about God that cannot be proven.
ie. Is there God at all? Is there God and not God? Is there a difference between God and not God? There are different ways to answer these questions, but as far as I know, I have never even heard of anyone intimating that it is possible to find a way to empirically test them.
Some atheists that used to frequent this site would intimate just this “God is testable” conjecture … but only after redefining God as a scientific proposition within the domain of their testing. And you rightly note that this inevitable move on their part means they are no longer discussing God in any sense that thinking Christians (now or historically) have ever meant when speaking of the Creator.
How should Christian believers feel about this? Does the absence of God in scientific papers make modern science—science defined according to Haarsma’s “narrower” meaning—an atheistic enterprise?
No more than making a cherry pie should be thought an atheistic enterprise just because some bakers can go about it with no thought of God whatsoever.