I would suggest that if you cannot test a hypothesis, it is indeed faith, and if it's God centered, then it's religious faith. It means the hypotheses about the moon, if they were untestable (and were based on God), were religion . It does not make the moon religion (nor does it making "seeing" the moon religion- it only makes hypostheses "about" the seen moon religion- IF they are based on religious tenets). You have been illogical there, and made a leap- between what is perceived, and what exists- and made the implication that seeing what exists, and theories about what exists, based on what is perceived, are the same thing, or have some sort of nexus that proves your point. That a faith based on religion might eventually turn out to have a basis in fact, does not make the faith "not faith". It makes it "also" science AT, and ONLY at, the time it can be tested by science.
"Science, including the testing process, is limited to the technology of the tools which currently exist. Are you suggesting that if humans don't possess advanced enough testing instruments, then a particular phenomenon is 'religion'?
That would make the moon in 1000, cancer in the 1800's, and AIDS in 1980 all religions." |
