Religion isn't falsifiable. So?
2007-08-03 · Original WordPress address
I hate when people try to force their religion on others. Usually, my reaction isn't to get angry, but to press the would-be evangelists further... They're usually really bad at it, when pushed.
One time, when I was living in Salt Lake City, a missionary came to my door to sell me on LDS. I invited him in, I poured him some coffee and I begin questioning him about Mormon beliefs (I did a little studying before I moved to SLC). "Do you really believe Smith was a prophet and he transcribed the Book of Mormon from gold plates found in his field? Do you really believe Christ came to the New World? etc etc..." In the end, he remained cheerful but flustered, but he admitted he didn't know if these things were literally true, but any case "that wasn't important to have the faith" (or some such).
As he left, I asked him to visit again so we could continue our discussion. He agreed, but I never saw him again.
It's easy to be agnostic (or antagonistic) about evangelism...
BUT, what about theology. It seems to me that it either makes sense or it doesn't make sense to think about things that can't be answered by science. Should we be allowed to talk about theories that aren't falsifiable?
My take on religion: its not a collection of theories, its a correlated equilibrium. Just like it doesn't make sense to reject expectations of inflation because they're not falsifiable, it doesn't make sense to reject religion for the same. Likewise, if expected inflation is a serious area of study, why not religion?
Yes, a flying spaghetti monster might be another correlated equilibrium... but its not the one we have. A Nash equilibrium may be one of a multiplicity, but that doesn't make it any less of a N.E.