There are a plethora of different theories and hypotheses put forward for pretty much every field of intellectual inquiry which includes the philosophical and metaphysical in addition to objective scientific study. It’s impractical to investigate them all simultaneously, as there are simply too many of them. We need to be critically discerning about which theories or hypotheses warrant further consideration.
In order to take a hypothesis beyond an initial postulate, it needs to be falsifiable – or at least testable. This means that the hypothesis must be capable of being verified against repeatable experimentation and observation that can contradict the hypothesis.
If the predictions of a hypothesis correspond to observation without contradiction, then that lends weight to the hypothesis. A sustained track record of being consistent with observation is one of the primary criteria for promoting a hypothesis to a theory. If a hypothesis can be contradicted by experimental observation, then that hypothesis is flawed. This forms the basis of the scientific method.
One criticism levelled at the scientific method arises from the philosophical debate between materialism and dualism. Materialism asserts that there is an objective, physical reality that exists independently of any observer. For example, if a tree falls in a forest and there’s nobody there, it still makes a noise (or at least pressure waves in the air that would be perceived as a noise).
Dualism, on the other hand, states that there is another psychic, spiritual or otherwise “supernatural” (beyond physics) reality. Immanuel Kant pointed out that all our observations are ultimately drawn via our subjective perceptions and therefore we never actually observe an object noumenally. Under this model, if you look at a rock, you’re actually experiencing the various phenomena of light, colour and texture which you’re subjectively interpreting as a rock…but not actually experiencing the noumenal rock “in and of itself”.
This gave rise to the brain in the jar argument, which uses this position to assert that there’s no such thing as an empirical observation. This was also the basis for the movie “The Matrix. Naturally, this can cause a problem for the scientific method which relies on experimental observation to evaluate a hypothesis.
As a result, dualism is often hijacked by proponents of supernatural hypotheses in an attempt to legitimize their hypothesis and excuse it from examination by the scientific method. This is somewhat disingenuous, as dualism really only exposes the weaknesses inherent to purely materialist reasoning. It does does not logically invert those weaknesses into supporting evidence for the supernatural.
This one of the primary difficulties we encounter when debating the existence of God, as most “God theories” invariably define themselves to be non-falsifiable. They plant a flag in the epistomological gap afforded by dualism and insist that, as their hypothesis cannot be logically disproven, it must carry equal intellectual weight despite a complete absence of any supporting evidence.
However, this is in itself a logical fallacy – specifically the “negative proof” argument which tries to assert that a premise must be considered true as it cannot be proven false.
Bertrand Russell coined the “Celestial Teapot” analogy to try and illustrate the flaw in this approach…
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
One counter to Russell’s argument is that the existence of the teapot is still theoretically verifiable, even if it’s unverifiable in any realistic, practical or technological sense – in other words that the laws of physics do not preclude us from verifying the theory. The counter argument asserts that God resides so entirely outside the sphere of human inquiry such that there is no theoretical basis for falsifiability – God is entirely metaphysical.
This counter-argument, of course, simply runs into difficulties of its own making. First, it assumes the “negative proof” fallacy as an inherent characteristic with a circular justification. God is non-falsifiable because God is non-falsifiable (and, of course, this defines the assertion itself to be non-falsifiable).
Secondly, it raises the question over the origins of God in the first place. Because the counter-argument defines God to be beyond all observation, indeed beyond the laws of physics, it must follow that it is impossible for us to perceive God. So how on earth did we get the idea that a God might exist in the first place? Well, there are really only two possibilities.
- The notion of God was a construct of human imagination.
- God, being metaphysical, used magic to bridge the laws of physics and be perceptible to us. He then interacted with us and told us of his existence.
Religious tradition implies the latter. Indeed, the apocryphal “burning bush” falls into this category. The problem is that we’re required to take all this on trust. If you were to encounter a burning bush and a booming voice declaring “I AM GOD” wouldn’t you be at least the tiniest bit skeptical? Of course you would.
However, the metaphysical argument implies that we have nothing but trust and incredulity on which to base belief in God…in which case, how do you decide between competing faith based positions? Maybe the scientologists are right after all (shudder)?
Ultimately, this is why the debate inexorably draws back to falsifiability and experimental observation. There simply is no other way to differentiate between the plausible and the implausible…and if one accepts the implausible when it’s friendly to ones viscerally held religious beliefs, then one will struggle to legitimately dismiss all the competing implausible theories that are grounded on similarly tenuous premises. In short, it’s hard to believe in one god and be atheist about the rest! 
In summary, feel free to postulate any hypotheses you wish – just don’t expect them to carry equal weight with well-tested theories unless you’re willing to expose your hypotheses to equal rigour.
What I do not understand is why science and religion are put in the same category.
Science to me has nothing to do with a “spiritual” sense that (imaginary or not) we might experiment. Science’s aim is not to provide humans with moral guide, comfort or any other emotional needs we as humans might have.
Religion to me is not supposed to provide me with a rigorous explanation on how things work, what are they made of and everything else that we believe religion is. I might be the odd one but for me religion is only valuable in the spiritual and moral realm. In that sense, I am not even sure why we attempt to validate religion against scientific methods, or why we can even say that science has more weight than religion.
To me both models they have very different ends and contexts of application. If anything, clashes between the two can be linked to us humans mixing them, trying to make comparisons and to an extreme, attempting to choose one above the other.
Ironic but some people hate religions precisely because their existence demands followers to believe that it is the absolute truth therefore eliminating other possible truths. However, science tends to have the same effect with religion: it seems to systematically falsify religions based on a series of scientific truths.
Then we see a pattern being developed: an embedded human tendency to believe there can only be one truth at any given time and that this has to be absolute as well. In this case either scientific or religious beliefs. Perhaps because it is more manage to see the world in that way?
I see a future were science and religion are seen as complementary to each other no mutually exclusive. Religion is a truth in itself in the spiritual and moral real, where as science presents us with truths about our physical world. They are both wrong is preaching superiority above the other.
To me both models they have very different ends and contexts of application. If anything, clashes between the two can be linked to us humans mixing them, trying to make comparisons and to an extreme, attempting to choose one above the other.
That’s exactly the point, the contexts are entirely different. It’s invalid to take something as subjective as religious belief and seek to give it equal standing with objective science. I don’t see how conflicting ends and contexts can be complementary, really. I could see that they could co-exist without conflict but only where one doesn’t try to do exactly the mixing your describing – i.e. using the supernatural to compete for an explanation of the natural.
Without turning this into a msn conversation
my last comment is:
If believe that the aim of religions is to provide a sense of belonging and purpose as well as incentive to behave good; and science as an approach to make a better use of physical resources and as a method to systematically analyse information; then I do not see them conflicting at all.
Religion and science can appear as conflicting or complementary depending on how you define each one of them. The truth is that both science and religion have been used for different purposes and ends throughout history. I do not believe there is a universal consensus on a specific aim for any of them, therefore making them both subjective to human interpretation and adaptive to different contexts and needs.