No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a better fit for religious questions.
First, it depends on what god you speak of. If you speak of the typical monotheist God (Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omni-benevolent, Has created our universe, Sentient, Listens to prayers, and sometimes Answers), then the question "Is there a God" is both falsifiable and false. (By "false", I mean of negligible probability given current evidence.)
Religious claims are typically falsifiable, and repeatedly disproved (creationism is a good example). Every time that happens, religions eventually back off, keeping only their claims that are not yet disproved.
Second, while some topics (like choosing a morality) are definitely outside the scope of science, the accurate description of our world is definitely inside. If something we could reasonably call "God" exist in our world, it's got to have consequences. I expect science to find out, or at least try. "Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.
Here again I disagree (with, I admit, a minute part of your point and one that was probably thrown in as an afterthought), in the same way I disagreed with loewenskind when he made an analogy with aesthetics. Morality and religion are dissimilar - maybe we will one day fully understand morality, but religion is (by religious people) in my understanding defined in terms that make it explicitly exempt from reasoning. Morality, we 'just don't understand' (maybe, depends on your position on the nature of morality, really); whereas religion is by its very nature we are said to be incapable of understanding.
I agree with your real point, though; what I'm saying is that religion in a class of its own, because the religious make it (or should I say 'make it up') to be that way.
(Related to this point, I do think that one day religion will be explained: when we fully understand the brain, how thoughts develop etc.; at that point, religion will be shown to be just a figment of our (rather, 'their') imagination. Maybe it served an evolutionary role once, who knows. Of course it won't give us insight in the nature of 'god', it will merely show that 'god' is a fabrication of our unconsciousness).
Err… I agree. I said that choosing a morality is outside the scope of science. But I agree that science can (and probably should) study morality. See Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is trying to build a Friendly AI. He will probably need a complete theory of Intelligence and Morality to do that.
I think this is exactly the kind of nonsensical flame war type post everyone wanted to avoid. Since you seem intent to go down that route I'll just leave you to it.
EDIT In response to your edit:
>"Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.
Yes, that's my projection. Sorry for the ad hominem argument. It just smelled like a rhetorical trick, so I got carried away. I also admit my post was a bit trolley (I expected down-votes and no reply, actually). But I don't think it was nonsense. I merely stated my (strong) beliefs without the usual "I believe" disclaimer. There's a reason why:
Either God exists, or it doesn't. Of atheists and deists, one group is wrong. As a matter of fact. As you know, I don't believe in God. If I were polite, I would stop there. Same thing for a deist. We could have a conversation, say "I (don't) believe in God", and it would still look like we "respect" the other's beliefs, and therefore we respect the other, period.
Trouble starts when I say "God doesn't exist" (it really doesn't). It's offensive. It makes too obvious that I think deists are wrong (they really are). Such a direct attack to their belief is of course not polite at all (yes, I am not polite). Politeness is secondary, however: we face Freaking Real Death! I bet many would like to solve that problem (and there are slim hopes that it will eventually be).
On the other hand, a deist that really believes in God, should tell me that it exists, that I'm wrong. Being polite is again secondary. Hey, my non-believer's very soul is at stake! I certainly wouldn't want to Burn in Hell for, say, wanting to be immortal.
Another point. You said earlier:
> […] "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. […]
This is weird to my ears. I assume that for any thing that have observable effect, science has a hope of detecting (and proving the presence of) that thing. God is no exception. So, if you're right, then the existence of God doesn't have any observable effect (by contraposition). Then, belief in God, an observable effect, isn't linked in any way to the actual existence of God. Meaning, belief in God has no valid justification.
Plus, the way that typical monotheists religions depict it, not only God is observable, it has actually been observed. For instance, any miracle God have performed should have a hope of being detected by archaeologists. (Unless God cleverly erased the evidence but I don't recall anything like that on the Bible. To my knowledge, it isn't written that God evades science.)
Plus, God is almost always depicted as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent (let's live aside sentience etc.). Well, those three characteristics combined should be sufficient to have a pretty big observable effect: living in the best possible world. If we don't (it's pretty clear we don't), then something is off.
So, saying that the existence of God can't be tested strikes me as an extremely weak justification for belief in God. Weaker that plainly stating that God exists because three famous, old, Holy books say so (authority can be a valid argument).
>Yes, that's my projection. Sorry for the ad hominem argument. It just smelled like a rhetorical trick, so I got carried away.
Fair enough. There are so many dishonest people arguing on both sides that one begins to expect the worst.
>Either God exists, or it doesn't. Of atheists and deists, one group is wrong. As a matter of fact.
Agreed. But one can never prove a negative. We can never prove that there is no plane of existence where another being might exist. That's not to say science shouldn't try. Science should, of course, explore every aspect of existence that it can test and observe.
>Politeness is secondary, however: we face Freaking Real Death! I bet many would like to solve that problem (and there are slim hopes that it will eventually be).
Of course. I don't see why a theist should have a problem with trying to cure death. For a Christian (for example), the story of the tower of babel should be enough to feel comfortable that man wont be allowed to do "go to far". If it happens, then it was obviously allowed.
>Hey, my non-believer's very soul is at stake!
Honestly, it is this very urgency from both sides that causes the problems I think. If the climate change situation has demonstrated anything, it has demonstrated that my urgency can not inspire you to action.
>science has a hope of detecting (and proving the presence of) that thing
We can't even detect the things we think we know about (e.g. dark matter). We can't expect to be able to detect things we don't even know about yet.
>not only God is observable
Not God, but actions of God. And I agree, some occurrences in a holy book should be able to be discovered.
>If we don't (it's pretty clear we don't), then something is off.
You seem to be assuming God would be in the same plane of existence as us. If I build a house I am not confined to that house, why would God be constrained by his own creation.
>saying that the existence of God can't be tested strikes me as an extremely weak justification for belief in God
It wasn't my intention to justify belief in anything, but rather defuse the absolute certainty of a position that can never be absolutely certain. My hope is that if people realize that no one has or can have all the answers that they'll stop trying to convince everyone all the time.
From what I've seen, the people who preach their message to strangers the loudest tend to be the worst representatives said message, regardless of faith (or lack thereof).
Guilty as charged. I was trying to throw in a sound byte to illustrate how some things can't be illuminated by science (e.g. "I have good taste", "No, you have bad taste, I have good taste", "Well that's obviously in poor taste", "Taste doesn't exist, it's something that has evolved from...", etc.) but I wasn't really happy with it either.
