God or Delusion? - "The lecture provides solid and scientific grounds for faith..."

[volatile]

"...by uprooting misconceptions about God and revealing a more believable, reliable and dependable God, and the practical healing power available to us all."

The Christian scientist (and Christian Scientist) Daniel Scott, the 'brains' behind GodorDelusion.info, from whence the above quote is taken, is currently on a lecture tour around the country. He's visiting my institution, the University of Reading, on Sunday 23rd November 2008 in order to discuss his supposedly scientific proof that not only does God exist, but that the healing power of prayer actually works.

Anyone (expecially the SiP crew - Mojo? Brodski?) fancy coming along and asking the right questions? I suspect his crowd may otherwise be rather pre-disposed to the drivel he's going to spout.

[I Ratant]

"What are the mortality statistics, Christian Scientists v those that accept modern medical 'intervention' ?"would be one question he could dance around.

[volatile]

"What are the mortality statistics, Christian Scientists v those that accept modern medical 'intervention' ?"would be one question he could dance around.

From the looks of the Wikipedia article on Christian Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_science#Criticism_of_Christian_Science), one suspects he'd already have a rehearsed answer.

I would be interested to hear his answers, though - as well as any response he may have to the Harvard prayer study!

[Moochie]

Christian Scientist? Oxymoron? (Or just a mis-spent youth?)


M.

[KingMerv00]

"The lecture provides solid and scientific grounds for faith..."

*Head a-splodes*

[volatile]

Bump.

Anyone else curious as to what his "scientific proof" of God might be?

[jimtron]

I would like hear about this "more reliable and dependable" god. How so? Rely on for what?

[brodski]

hmm, that does look interesting, hopefully I'll be able to make it along.

[jadey]

"The lecture provides solid and scientific grounds for faith..."


One definition of faith (on dictionary.com) has faith as "belief that is not based on proof". So we could re-state this as "The lecture provides solid and scientific grounds for belief that is not based on proof".

Okay, so he'll prove something that is not based on proof. I'm predicting some circular logic here ... :D

[volatile]

hmm, that does look interesting, hopefully I'll be able to make it along.

Beer and food afterwards?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd guess from the "more believable" bit that it's just going to be a more abstract (or rather more vague) definition of god he's arguing for. Wherever you find a gap in our scientific knowledge--that's where god is!

[learner]

I would like hear about this "more reliable and dependable" god. How so? Rely on for what?

My bet is that its a goalpost moving exercise. Re-design your god to better fit the diminishing gaps. Holy defragment!

[Bikewer]

I like the idea of a dependable God. Who wants a fickle, unreliable God who would, say, tell you to knife your own son to death and then say it was all a joke....

[Aitch]

I may be being a bit naive here, but isn't the whole point of faith that there is no proof? Some god or other reveals himself in a mysterious way and you're supposed to believe in him/her/it/them without evidence?

[millwallfan]

:boggled:Bump.

Anyone else curious as to what his "scientific proof" of God might be?

science=god

[Cainkane1]

I'll believe in "The healing power of god" when I see an amputated limb restored or a spinal scholiosis reversed or a 6000 year old mummy brought back to life.

[Beerina]

Given most prayers for healing, at the very, very best, are failures "since God declined due to you sucking at prayer, or because He Has Something Else Planned", relying on prayer even in a universe with an existing god as per the Bible is a criminally negligent method of medical treatment.

[brodski]

Beer and food afterwards?

sounds good, do you have more details of a venue/ time etc? What are the transport links like?

[elipse]

a few things for you guys to think about if you do go:

these guys are not charlatans. They genuinely believe that prayer heals, for all the usual reasons- confirmation bias, etc.

There was a study done of life length for people who went to non-religious colleges vs. people who went to the Christian Science college, which is called Principia. (People who went to other colleges lived longer, even though they were more likely to smoke and drink, which CS'ers don't do.) You could look that up. (I would definitely have hard numbers rather than wiggly suppositions). I actually went to an orientation at principia. At the time I was already on the path to athiesm, though, so I only went to make my parents happy. It was beautiful- I remember that.

I'd make him nail down his position on children and prayer. That's the one that makes me most angry. Does he, or does he not, think that children should also get medical care?

Christian Scientists get huffy if you "confuse" it with faith healing. Faith healing is "I'm sick and if I pray to god enough, god will make it better." This is actually quite different (at least, from the CS point of view) from the CS position, which is "I am NOT sick. God created a perfect world, and I am therefore perfect. It is only my limited knowledge of God's perfection and my imperfect faith in that perfection that causes me to succumb to false evidence of disease. Once (not if, mind you, because everybody eventually comes around to perfect faith and knowledge in God, which is essentially a CS'ers definition of heaven) I realize and believe that this illness is false, I will be able to see myself as god sees me- whole and healthy."

You might ask why CS'ers pray about disease but take their cars in to a shop. Since God's creation is perfect, why don't people pray to make their cars work? Actually, his response will probably be that some people do, and follow with an anecdote or two (called a "testimony" in CS) about people who prayed and had their cars "healed". Here's the thing: CS'ers pray about EVERYTHING. The answer to every dilemma is to pray about it.

You should definitely ask about his definition of science, and pin him down regarding double blind tests, and controls, and the scientific method, and so forth. CS'ers honestly believe they are engaging in scientific god belief, and don't actually understand why their "results" are not scientific.

He will be prepared for the "prayer doesn't help" study and will probably counter with studies that show the opposite. Unless you do the research and find out why these studies are flawed, I wouldn't mention that particular study.

If you want to try out some questions on me, I might be able to steer you towards the kind of answers he might give.

[volatile]

sounds good, do you have more details of a venue/ time etc? What are the transport links like?

It's at the University of Reading; I think it starts about 2 or something. There are regular trains back to London until 10:30pm...