The the God hypothesis a scientific hypothesis?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

So you're going witih NOMA. That's fine--I can appreciate the protocol. Here's the thing, however--you have to keep your RELIGION out of SCIENCE as well as science staying out of religion. That means that your religion cannot make ANY testable statements. Which means that you have no evidence for it, which in turn means it's inherently irrational to believe anything it says. If you want to accept irrationality that's fine, a surprising number of people do (the entire DaDa movement, for example). But if you make a testable hypothesis your religion is violating NOMA, and science has every right to jump on that statement--as science has the right to jump on any statement that falls into its magesteria.

Of course religion can make testable statements. And science can test them. If religion turns out to be wrong on a testable issue, then so much the worse for religion. However, the consequences are worse if science starts abandoning its standards in order to speculate on the metaphysical.

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by westprog

Of course religion can make testable statements. And science can test them. If religion turns out to be wrong on a testable issue, then so much the worse for religion. However, the consequences are worse if science starts abandoning its standards in order to speculate on the metaphysical.

Is the God Hypothesis testable?

[Stomatopoda]

If life and the universe are not fundamentally rational, then there's no point in thinking about or trying to understand anything. Therefore, we should assume that it is rational. If it isn't, nothing matters anyway, and nothing can be lost or gained by assuming otherwise. For the same reason, solipsism/hard determinism is pointless to even consider.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

Is the God Hypothesis testable?

Not unless you postulate a testable God. If someone believes in a testable God, then that of course can be tested for. The kinds of tests often put forward to prove or disprove the existence of god/gods generally involve the god in question fully cooperating with the rules set up for the test.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by westprog

Not unless you postulate a testable God. If someone believes in a testable God, then that of course can be tested for. The kinds of tests often put forward to prove or disprove the existence of god/gods generally involve the god in question fully cooperating with the rules set up for the test.

There lies the rub though. People's gods only become untestable when someone goes to test it. Before then, people make all sorts of claims.

For example, go ask a fundamentalist christian whether prayer has any real world effect.

People's religions and beliefs have all sorts of real-world impacts, until you try to define and test them, at which time you're met with rather annoyed theists claiming nonsense like NOMA.

If your religion or whatever *has real world impact* then it is testable. If it doesnt, why do you even bother with it?

[annnnoid]

Originally Posted by devnull

If your religion or whatever *has real world impact* then it is testable. If it doesnt, why do you even bother with it?

Real world impact:

Can provide what people believe are answers to important questions.
Can provide meaning in people’s lives in innumerable ways..
Can provide purpose and direction.
Can provide orientation when dealing with everything from minor to major life issues.
Can provide comfort and solace when dealing with substantial challenges.
This list varies entirely according to the individual in question and can range from all but inconsequential issues to the most important things in life. Every situation is different and is entirely a function of the subjective perspective in question.

Is even a single one of these falsifiable (I’ll let Hokulele answer that one)? Meaning, purpose, direction, comfort, understanding….etc. etc. Are these a part of the ‘….real world…’ ?.....or not. Please Devnull….explain exactly how a single one of these would be….testable?

Does not necessarily light bushes on fire or part the seas or….what was it you wanted dafydd…you wanted God to appear in the sky or on every computer screen. But dafydd…what if God IS the sky and IS every computer screen. I think God would probably answer you thus:

“…Y’know dafydd (or whatever your name is)….I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you…”

Next dumb question.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by devnull

There lies the rub though. People's gods only become untestable when someone goes to test it. Before then, people make all sorts of claims.

For example, go ask a fundamentalist christian whether prayer has any real world effect.

People's religions and beliefs have all sorts of real-world impacts, until you try to define and test them, at which time you're met with rather annoyed theists claiming nonsense like NOMA.

If your religion or whatever *has real world impact* then it is testable. If it doesnt, why do you even bother with it?

The real world importance of religious faith is to decide if a given action is right or wrong. What is the scientific viewpoint on that issue?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by westprog

So don't. Accept that the "The the God hypothesis" is not a scientific hypothesis. Thread over.

If the believers are making empirically based claims (i.e. the Earth is 6000 years old because that's when God created it), then that is a falsifiable claim which can be tested with the tools of science. The scientific community has, in fact, done this very thing to a high degree of precision and found the claim to be hogwash.

If the believers have defined their God to be one which performed the aforementioned creation, then the scientific analysis would suggest that:

a) that's not the way their God created the Earth, or
b) their God doesn't exist.

These conclusions are perfectly logical given the argument and this particular definition of "God" (provided by fundamentalist YECs, not me). If, however, you define "God" differently, then depending upon your definition, the above conclusions may or may not be appropriate. For example, everything written above seems perfectly consistent with a deistic God.

But, in this specific context, the claim is scientifically testable and this particular variant of the God hypothesis is a scientific one.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by westprog

The real world importance of religious faith is to decide if a given action is right or wrong. What is the scientific viewpoint on that issue?

You're making what seems to be an argument from ignorance: "Because science cannot speak to every issue related to faith, religion, and God, then it can speak to none of them!"

Nice way to stack the deck.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

But, in this specific context, the claim is scientifically testable and this particular variant of the God hypothesis is a scientific one.

Yes, of course. Evolution, the age of the Earth, etc, are entirely testable and should be tested. If various religions dispute this, and place themselves in opposition to science, then they have to suffer the consequences.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

You're making what seems to be an argument from ignorance: "Because science cannot speak to every issue related to faith, religion, and God, then it can speak to none of them!"

Nice way to stack the deck.

You seem to be making assumptions based on... actually, not on anything at all, really - since what I've been saying is directly opposed to what you're saying that I'm saying.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by westprog

Of course religion can make testable statements. And science can test them. If religion turns out to be wrong on a testable issue, then so much the worse for religion. However, the consequences are worse if science starts abandoning its standards in order to speculate on the metaphysical.

What if those speculations include an analysis of empirical claims, such as "intercessory prayer can cure cancer"? You do know that numerous scientific studies have been conducted on similar topics, don't you? One of the most rigorous and famous (and most recent) studies - link here - found no benefit from intercessory prayer; in fact, the study also found that when people knew they were being prayed for, many did worse!

Are we to simply ignore all of that research as a mere "metaphysical" speculation?

ETA: This scenario also has implications for what kind of God may or may not exist. Again, remember that it is the believers who are making these claims (like the YECs who insist Earth is 6000 years old), not us. People like us are merely putting those claims to the test, using the tools of science.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by westprog

Yes, of course. Evolution, the age of the Earth, etc, are entirely testable and should be tested. If various religions dispute this, and place themselves in opposition to science, then they have to suffer the consequences.

ETA: So you admit that the God hypothesis can be scientific, depending upon the circumstances?

[devnull]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Real world impact:
Can provide what people believe are answers to important questions.

But not necessarily, you know, actual answers.

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Can provide meaning in people’s lives in innumerable ways..

Or at least the sensation of meaning?

Other things can provide actual meaning you do realise? Its like the difference between prayer and helping at a soup kitchen.

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Can provide purpose and direction.

So can thinking things through.

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Can provide orientation when dealing with everything from minor to major life issues.

So can thinking things through. And family. And friends. And hobbies. And your profession. And many things not invented out of whole cloth.

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Can provide comfort and solace when dealing with substantial challenges.

So can drugs. And family. And friends. And....

Originally Posted by annnnoid

This list varies entirely according to the individual in question and can range from all but inconsequential issues to the most important things in life. Every situation is different and is entirely a function of the subjective perspective in question.

I jest of course, but again, my issue with this stuff is that people not only believe it, but *aren't happy until you believe it too*. If you think you hold the key to life, why is it so important to you that we believe you hold the key too?

There's an actual answer to this, but it's rooted in science, so I won't bother you with it.

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Does not necessarily light bushes on fire or part the seas or…

These are claims made by people with the actual belief, you realise? You are berating a non-believer for expecting "god" to be revealed in tangible ways *just like it happens throughout the entire bible*? Really?

Originally Posted by annnnoid

But dafydd…what if God IS the sky and IS every computer screen. I think God would probably answer you thus:

“…Y’know dafydd (or whatever your name is)….I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you…”

And there again is the problem. Suddenly you are speaking for some god. And you made it up. And you think it holds weight for some reason?

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Next dumb question.

No such thing exists....... and pretending that all of this is common knowledge and we don't understand because we're idiots is a transparent attempt at furthering an agenda that has little weight outside of your head.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by westprog

You seem to be making assumptions based on... actually, not on anything at all, really - since what I've been saying is directly opposed to what you're saying that I'm saying.

I seem to have misread you. My apologies.

Could you clarify for me? I'm confused about what you're actually saying.

[annnnoid]

Originally Posted by devnull

But not necessarily, you know, actual answers.

Or at least the sensation of meaning?

Other things can provide actual meaning you do realise? Its like the difference between prayer and helping at a soup kitchen.

So can thinking things through.

So can thinking things through. And family. And friends. And hobbies. And your profession. And many things not invented out of whole cloth.

So can drugs. And family. And friends. And....

I jest of course, but again, my issue with this stuff is that people not only believe it, but *aren't happy until you believe it too*. If you think you hold the key to life, why is it so important to you that we believe you hold the key too?

There's an actual answer to this, but it's rooted in science, so I won't bother you with it.

These are claims made by people with the actual belief, you realise? You are berating a non-believer for expecting "god" to be revealed in tangible ways *just like it happens throughout the entire bible*? Really?

And there again is the problem. Suddenly you are speaking for some god. And you made it up. And you think it holds weight for some reason?

No such thing exists....... and pretending that all of this is common knowledge and we don't understand because we're idiots is a transparent attempt at furthering an agenda that has little weight outside of your head.

All of this is utter garbage and completely avoids the point. If you can’t address the point devnull…I’ll simply have to conclude that you either don’t know what you’re talking about or you’re afraid to admit you’re wrong. Of course, I came to that conclusion a long time ago but we'll just assume that's academic for the moment. Maybe you'll surprise me.

You explicitly claimed that the real world impact (of religion) is scientifically testable (I provided a whole list of ‘real world impacts’. Who cares if you don’t like them. That’s not even irrelevant.).

Prove it.

That you are incapable of supporting your argument…that is eminently testable.

What’s that old cliché…put up or shut up.

[devnull]

Can you perhaps name a real-world impact that *isn't* testable?

I don't even really comprehend the question.

All the things you mentioned before are real impacts of religious belief, and are of course testable in one way or another. For example, you could quite easily measure the happiness of people soon after the death of a close relative, and try to pick statistical differences between the religious and non-religious. If the religious showed a higher level of "happiness" (by whatever measure you deem appropriate) then you could claim religion can soften the impact of bad news.

Of course none of this speaks to whether any of it is actually real, but lets not worry about that.

Unless your claim is that psychology and sociology aren't really science?

[Stomatopoda]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Real world impact:

Can provide what people believe are answers to important questions.
Can provide meaning in people’s lives in innumerable ways..
Can provide purpose and direction.
Can provide orientation when dealing with everything from minor to major life issues.
Can provide comfort and solace when dealing with substantial challenges.
This list varies entirely according to the individual in question and can range from all but inconsequential issues to the most important things in life. Every situation is different and is entirely a function of the subjective perspective in question.

Those are the impacts of belief in god(s), not the impact of god(s). The same can hold true for any belief system or philosophy, regardless of its validity.

With the "everything is god" philosophy, the term "god" becomes meaningless. The difference between a Deist universe and an atheist universe is the same as the difference between 1/3 and 2/6.

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by westprog

Not unless you postulate a testable God. If someone believes in a testable God, then that of course can be tested for. The kinds of tests often put forward to prove or disprove the existence of god/gods generally involve the god in question fully cooperating with the rules set up for the test.

Can you give me an example of a testable God and a non-testable God?

Also, regarding the testable God, how is its existence to be tested?

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

That kind of speculation is entirely pointless. In your alternatives, what would be different? How could one tell if one is simply a mirage or not? If there is no way to tell, there is no reason to speculate whether any of your alternatives may or may not be true.

Pragmatism may sound boring, but it allows me to worry about things actually worth worrying about.

Quite, then don't worry about the existence of gods with science.

If that kind of speculation is pointless, perhaps you can tell me the scientifically accepted cosmogenesis as an alternative on which to speculate?

[devnull]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Quite, then don't worry about the existence of gods with science.

If that kind of speculation is pointless, perhaps you can tell me the scientifically accepted cosmogenesis as an alternative on which to speculate?

You mean theory of cosmogenesis? I dont think there is one......

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I'm going to ignore the rest of what you said--it's nothing more than dodging questions (you want to talk about testing how we process thoughts, not the validity of a concept, which isn't what I was talking about and you know it) or smoke-screens ("stepping outside our subjective awareness" means nothing more than pretending to know what we have no data for). If you know I've already answered the question than asking me to answer it again is disengenuous. If there's some aspect that confuses you I'll gladly clarify, but I won't waste my time on someone who can't be bothered to read my responses. After all, how do I know you'll read THIS response? You may arbitrarily decide it's too long.

The highlighted part of this is either dishonest or ignorant. I'll assume the latter, becuase it gives me a chance to demonstrate the difference between parsimony, which is a way to evaluate competing hypotheses, and the criteria for determining whether a hypothesis is worthy of evaluation. It's something many people get confused on, and worth writing out explicitely.

Parsimony is, boiled down, the idea that the simplest answer is the most likely to be accurate. "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily", for example--don't postulate more things than you need to explain the system. This is actually extremely valid logic, as each additional assumed thing necessarily adds untested and unsupported hypotheses to your theoretical framework. For example, if I assume that my coffee is hot because atoms are made of damned souls and demons were poking them with pitchforks, I've added demons, souls, microscoping pitchforks, damnation, by correlary salvation, and a host of other concepts to the question of why my coffee is hot. The explanation isn't NECESSARILY wrong--there's no data to say that heat ISN'T demons with pitchforks, or that atoms AREN'T made of damned souls at some level--but since the idea adds a huge number of untested hypotheses to the system it will properly be rejected for simple thermodynamics, which has extremely few untested hypotheses at this scale and at this point in time (physics has cups of liquid cooling in an open system pretty well figured out).

That's not what I'm talking about at all in my previous post and I've made that very clear. I'm saying that if you cannot demonstrate something you don't know it. While this may superficially sound like parsimony, it's actually a very different concept. Parsimony deals with how to evaluate two ideas that are both supported by evidence. The concept I'm talking about is the criteria for admitting a concept into discussion in the first place. In order for us to apply parsimony the idea must have already met the criteria for being taken seriously--it must have evidence to support it.

Essentially, for an idea to be taken seriously it must be demonstrable or supportable. Notice that I didn't say it has to be TRUE, merely that it has to be able to be demonstrated or supported. Most scientists make hypotheses that are later falsified; however, because they have some support or some test indicates that they may be true they are still admissible into serious consideration. In contrast, ideas which have no evidentiary support are not worthy of serious consideration even if they are true. This issue causes no end of heartburn in my field. Every paleontologist would love to say more about the things we see in the rock, but without the data we simply can't. And with the rise of taphonomy we're having to re-evaluate our data to determine what we actually have real evidence for. I know of one paper who's conclusions I tend to dismiss because they haven't done enough taphonomic work to prove that they have enough evidence to say ANYTHING.

Note that I'm not saying the paper's conclusions are wrong--I'm saying I dismiss them. To say that something is right or wrong presupposes that it has enough evidence to be evaluated. This paper's conclusions--and the god hypothesis--do not, and therefore don't rise to the level of being wrong.

A good example of where parsimony applies is a phylogenetic tree. The evolution of any taxa that includes more than two or three species can be represented by multiple phylogenetic trees. We choose the shortest trees because those have the most probability of being correct. And we're sometimes wrong--newly-discovered fossils on occasion require us to make minor tweeks or serious revisions to our understanding of how things evolved (not THAT they evolved, but the precise pathway evolution took). It's entirely possible that organisms gained and lost shared derived traits hundreds or thousands of times, but it's so unlikely that the notion isn't worth persuing.

The god hypothesis is more akin to demanding that you make a phylogenetic tree of organisms that do not exist and which no one can describe. It's impossible. It has nothing to do with parsimony--the hypothesis hasn't risen to the level at which parsimony applies. The hypothesis is properly rejected at the outset because there is insufficient data to say ANYTHING about it.

Let me put this another way. We have all kinds of data about dragons. I've got a book on the taxonomy of dragons, by a real life Ph.D. I've collected numerous books and legends about the creatures, from multiple cultures around the world. What I do NOT have is any evidence, at all, for these creatures. Thus, while it's entertaining to speculate about them I cannot make any serious statements about them,because without the data I can't know ANYTHING about them. By your own admission and the admission of other theists here, including Limbo who you cite as someone who's opinion I should take seriously, you have no more proof of gods than I have of dragons.

Thank you for this explanation, I appreciate your point along with all your other points which I do read by the way.

I have read your discussion with westprog regarding whether the God hypothesis is worthy or not of consideration and it continues to distill out as parsimony. In the light of your explanation of parsimony above, I will remind you that I did specifically refer to a possible range of objective definitions/parameters as a starting point for a "scientific" analysis of the issue, in my first post in this thread.

Quote:

I will address this point, as it partains to my above statements: the definitiono of "esoteric" here doesn't matter. Limbo's definition has amounted to nothing more than "knowledge that doesn't require evidence", which is a contradiction.

Limbo was referring to a tradition of knowledge through subjective experience, which does exist.

Quote:

Frankly, I also believe that it's inappropriate for Dawkins to argue percentages of probability for the existence of gods. But I come at it from the other side. Until you provide evidence for gods, there's no justification for giving the theists that much credit. It's not 50/50; the theists haven't even shown the concept to be worthy of evaluation.

Well there is evidence of intelligent creators*(manipulators) emerging naturally in nature. Which will in the near future create an, entirely new to nature (in this locality), form of intelligent creator, namely AI.

So is the presence in nature of intelligent creators, creating intelligent creators, who will intern create further intelligent creators in the future, evidence enough to consider that intelligent creation of some kind may be involved in cosmogenesis.

Or will you dismiss physical evidence?


* by creator, I am referring to an intelligent creative act manipulating an existing substrate. Not a creation ex nihilo.

Oh and by the way I am not a theist, I am a mystic and hold no beliefs.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by devnull

You mean theory of cosmogenesis? I dont think there is one......

So to science cosmogenesis is irrelevant?

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Who said anything about belief? I specifically addressed lack of belief.

You do understand that lacking belief is not the same as believing that something does not exist. If I am a juror, I can vote "not guilty" based on a lack of evidence of the defendant's guilt, yet not have a positive belief that he must therefor be innocent. I can lack certain belief in both the defendant's guilt and innocence due to insufficient evidence for either claim.

Because no one can offer any evidence of the existence of gods, I lack positive belief in them. Saying "I have no belief in gods" is not the same as saying "I believe that no gods exist".

Do you have a belief in existence?

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

But, in this specific context, the claim is scientifically testable and this particular variant of the God hypothesis is a scientific one.

Yes I agree that God hypotheses derived from mythology are scientifically testable, or perhaps more aptly explainable (as the sciences involved are the humanities).

However as I have pointed out before, any Gods that might actually exist are unlikely to fit such descriptions and will exist or not regardless of what humanity cares to say on the subject.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Let me get this straight…you have 26,249 posts…you’ve been here since 2007 (four or five years) and you do not understand something as basic as this! Tell me Hokulele…what does the “E” in JREF stand for?

I understand my position on this, what I do not understand is yours. Please give me an example of a subjective experience you believe is not falsifiable. I mean, if it really is that obvious, this should be fairly simple, no?

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Quite, then don't worry about the existence of gods with science.

If that kind of speculation is pointless, perhaps you can tell me the scientifically accepted cosmogenesis as an alternative on which to speculate?

Heh, as if there is any single scientifically accepted one. Too funny.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by punshhh

So to science cosmogenesis is irrelevant?

Irrelevant? Im sure there are several hypotheses.... perhaps it is unknowable in the end? Maybe new evidence will be discovered and we will learn more.

[Donn]

Even if one accepts a mystical god beyond comprehension, there has to be the faintest skein of links between it and reality.

Propose a link, science can test it.

Q.E.D

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Donn

Even if one accepts a mystical god beyond comprehension, there has to be the faintest skein of links between it and reality.

Propose a link, science can test it.

Q.E.D

Punshhh believes in an infinite chain of creator gods. He also believes that there are fairies and pixies in his foliage, I wouldn't be expecting a protocol from him.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by punshhh

So to science cosmogenesis is irrelevant?

No, it's just that scientists don't pretend to have an answer, or even to know if the question is valid.

The null hypothesis is not intrinsically inferior to any idea that claims to offer an explanation. If two people are asked what lies behind a closed door, and one answers "I don't know" while the other answers "A dragon", it doesn't mean that the admission of ignorance is inferior to the crazy explanation because it doesn't offer a counter explanation.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

Real world impact:

Can provide what people believe are answers to important questions.
Can provide meaning in people’s lives in innumerable ways..
Can provide purpose and direction.
Can provide orientation when dealing with everything from minor to major life issues.
Can provide comfort and solace when dealing with substantial challenges.
This list varies entirely according to the individual in question and can range from all but inconsequential issues to the most important things in life. Every situation is different and is entirely a function of the subjective perspective in question.

Is even a single one of these falsifiable (I’ll let Hokulele answer that one)? Meaning, purpose, direction, comfort, understanding….etc. etc. Are these a part of the ‘….real world…’ ?.....or not. Please Devnull….explain exactly how a single one of these would be….testable?

Does not necessarily light bushes on fire or part the seas or….what was it you wanted dafydd…you wanted God to appear in the sky or on every computer screen. But dafydd…what if God IS the sky and IS every computer screen. I think God would probably answer you thus:

“…Y’know dafydd (or whatever your name is)….I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you…”

Next dumb question.

What people believe ain't necessarily so.

Why do people need an outside force to give meaning to their lives?

When did you become empowered to speak for god?


So far you've explained nothing, asserted everything.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by westprog

The real world importance of religious faith is to decide if a given action is right or wrong. What is the scientific viewpoint on that issue?

Which religion?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

All of this is utter garbage and completely avoids the point. If you can’t address the point devnull…I’ll simply have to conclude that you either don’t know what you’re talking about or you’re afraid to admit you’re wrong. Of course, I came to that conclusion a long time ago but we'll just assume that's academic for the moment. Maybe you'll surprise me.

You explicitly claimed that the real world impact (of religion) is scientifically testable (I provided a whole list of ‘real world impacts’. Who cares if you don’t like them. That’s not even irrelevant.).

Prove it.

That you are incapable of supporting your argument…that is eminently testable.

What’s that old cliché…put up or shut up.

Your argument has yet to show up.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

“…Y’know dafydd (or whatever your name is)….I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you…”

Next dumb question.

I doubt that very much. You haven't explained anything so far. Next dumb answer please.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

What if those speculations include an analysis of empirical claims, such as "intercessory prayer can cure cancer"? You do know that numerous scientific studies have been conducted on similar topics, don't you? One of the most rigorous and famous (and most recent) studies - link here - found no benefit from intercessory prayer; in fact, the study also found that when people knew they were being prayed for, many did worse!

Are we to simply ignore all of that research as a mere "metaphysical" speculation?

ETA: This scenario also has implications for what kind of God may or may not exist. Again, remember that it is the believers who are making these claims (like the YECs who insist Earth is 6000 years old), not us. People like us are merely putting those claims to the test, using the tools of science.

It seems I have to keep repeating this - if something is testable, it can be tested. Claims as to the precise efficacy of prayer - if such claims are being made - can be tested. This isn't an issue. The issue is whether science can adjudicate on claims that can't be tested. I'm saying that it obviously can't. For the most part, this seems to be accepted provided it can be phrased in a way that makes religion look bad. I'm fine with that provided the point is accepted.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by westprog

It seems I have to keep repeating this - if something is testable, it can be tested. Claims as to the precise efficacy of prayer - if such claims are being made - can be tested. .

It has been tested and failed.

http://www.godisimaginary.com/i2.htm

http://www.google.co.uk/

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-1458679.html

http://www.sciencemusings.com/2004/1...-of-heart.html

A peer-reviewed scientific study published in 2001 did indicate that prayer works. According to this article:

"On October 2, 2001, the New York Times reported that researchers at prestigious Columbia University Medical Center in New York had discovered something quite extraordinary. Using virtually foolproof scientific methods the researchers had demonstrated that infertile women who were prayed for by Christian prayer groups became pregnant twice as often as those who did not have people praying for them. The study was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. Even the researchers were shocked. The study's results could only be described as miraculous."

This study was later proven to be completely fraudulent. However, everyone who cut out the original article in the NYTimes and posted it on their refrigerators still has that article as "proof" that prayer works.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by westprog

It seems I have to keep repeating this

Welcome to my world. How many times have I had to remind you (among others) that rejecting an idea as unworthy of consideration is not the same as declaring it wrong?

Quote:

The issue is whether science can adjudicate on claims that can't be tested.

Once more it seems!

Quote:

For the most part, this seems to be accepted provided it can be phrased in a way that makes religion look bad.

I'm not aware of any other way to phrase it. Religions offer three types of claims: those that are testable and wrong (all of Exodus, for example), those that are testable and right but trivial (meaning they do nothing to support the religion in question--things like, Egypt existed), or those that are untestable and without evidence (for example, Jeshua bin Yoseph was a god). I'm perfectly willing to accept that a whole class of religious argumenst is untestable and without evidence. What I'm not willing to do--and what you appear to be more than happy to do--is to give statements that cannot be tested and utterly lack evidence any consideration. They're not wrong, because there's not enough substance to that class of claims to discuss, much less evaluate.

Quote:

The real world importance of religious faith is to decide if a given action is right or wrong.

See, that's where the whole thing fell apart for me. It's trivially easy to construct morall systems that don't hinge on gods. Ayn Rand did it. So did Karl Marx. Dawkins and Hitchens offer atheistic moral philosophies. Socrates was put to death in part for advocating morality separate from religion, as I recall. Ethics and morality are not the sole domain of religion, even in theory. And if you want to talk real-world applications, I invite you to attend a daily mass at any Roman Catholic parish. I grew up doing so. What I learned early on is that no one cares what the priest said, or what the Bible said. They lived their lives as they saw fit, and if the priest's message didn't conform to what they had already determined to be the proper way to live (ie, if the priest's ethics conflicted with the congregation's) the priest got ran out of town. The religion doesn't provide morality, it merely conforms to the ethical system already in place in the congregation.

While this may not be true for theologians, it's true for religions I've encountered (not all memebers of any religion are theologians).

[westprog]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Yes I agree that God hypotheses derived from mythology are scientifically testable, or perhaps more aptly explainable (as the sciences involved are the humanities).

However as I have pointed out before, any Gods that might actually exist are unlikely to fit such descriptions and will exist or not regardless of what humanity cares to say on the subject.

The omnipotent god common to the Christian/Jewish/Muslim viewpoint cannot be tested for in any sensible way. Clearly such a god would be capable of intervening without detection. There's no valid test that would detect whether a god capable of setting the laws of nature was there or not. Talk of "intervention" is missing the point - if such a god exists, it's all intervention.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by westprog

The omnipotent god common to the Christian/Jewish/Muslim viewpoint cannot be tested for in any sensible way. Clearly such a god would be capable of intervening without detection. There's no valid test that would detect whether a god capable of setting the laws of nature was there or not. Talk of "intervention" is missing the point - if such a god exists, it's all intervention.

God is everywhere yet nowhere?