Yes, that’s certainly one theory. Can you prove it?
As it is, and as I’ve said before, science does not answer all religious questions, and it never will. It is not the job of science to apply meaning to the universe, but of philosophy. There is not a dicotomy between faith and science. One can believe in both… or neither. There are some awfully nutty atheists in the world, too.
I can probably find scientific articles to back it up but for future reference following the word “theory” with “Can you prove it?” doesn’t make sense. Theories are descriptions and explanations of factual phenomena so by their very nature they are already proven. What I said would be a hypothesis, or an educated guess based on my general knowledge.
Evolution=factual phenomenon; the Theory of Evolution=explanation/description of how it works.
Gravity=factual phenomenon; the Theory of Gravitation=explanation/description of how it works.
Fun fact: We know more about how evolution works than how gravity works, making the theory of evolution more complete than the theory of gravity.
On your other point about science and religion/philosophy being separate; they are beginning to converge. Mainly because all religion/philosophy have real world implications and deities are thought to often interact with our universe meaning that, if they’re real, we should be able to measure their impact through science. And then there’s neurology and psychology with the work of Viktor Frankl, Sam Harris, Philip Zimbardo, and many others who study/studied morals, ethics, and meanings to life.
…What. I was with you on the theories not being part of ‘proof’ up until this: Theories are descriptions and explanations of factual phenomena so by their very nature they are already proven.
No. Absolutely not. Proof is a mathematical and legal term that I used carelessly in this instance, but you’re using completely incorrectly. THEORIES, BY THEIR NATURE, CANNOT BE PROVEN. Ever. Science does not prove things, math does. The theory of gravity is not proven, and it never will be.
Theories describe factual phenomena to the best of human ability to explain them. When a better explanation comes along, the old one is rejected. Whichever theory has the best evidence to support it and explains things most clearly is the preferred- not proven- theory.
I haven’t argued against the theory of evolution, when applied to the things that it has actual evidence for. I dislike it being used as a social tool. I’m not sure that you’re articulating the difference very well.
Converging philosophy and science, though, doesn’t suggest that it’s to anyone’s benefit to reject faith. That doesn’t follow. Sam Harris makes a lot of claims that have yet to be supported about morality and science. He might think that science and philosophy may begin to converge someday, but that doesn’t make it so. Curious, why on earth would we presume that God- any God- would be testable through science? How would such a test look? At a quantum level, particles have demonstrated a bizarre ability to seemingly choose which path they’ll follow depending on the way they’re monitored… if PARTICLES can really do that, what hope do we have of measuring a being that is thought to have created the universe?
Unless of course, He wants to be found.
Ah, yeah, I conflated the theory with the thing itself.
Converging philosophy and science alone don’t suggest that but together with recent polls that say the most secular countries in the world report greater happiness and less crime than the more religious ones does. And philosophy and science have been converging since Wilhelm Wundt set up psychology as a science, it’s only more recently that neurology has begun to join through Harris.