Is there "Evidence" of God?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Liberal

Suppose someone were to make the assertion that a spinal epidural injection of certain kinds of steroids has been shown to relieve inflammation of the sciatic nerve in 80% of cases. If that were an assertion that you doubted, I would not want you demanding names and addresses of people cured by the process because I’m one of them. You’re talking about people here. Articles from scientists or medical doctors is an okay demand, but those are not going to give you names and phone numbers either. And rightly so.

Indeed, rightly so. But first, I didn’t ask for addresses or phone numbers: why did you add those into the example?

That said, I agree that doctors aren’t going to give out patient information willy-nilly. What they are going to do is (and I write this having worked for six months in an office that managed clinical research studies) keep charts that other physicians have access to; design double-blind, multi-institutional, randomized studies; provide all relevant data to other qualified physicians who are examining their claims; work closely with a statistician to verify that their claims are statistically valid; and so forth.

Do you agree that this is a more rigorous process than [paraphrased], “I have friends who are scientists and who have witnessed miracles”?

Given that the process for documenting a medical claim is rigorous, with multiple checks in the system to prevent fraud, I think it is reasonable for me to put a moderate amount of trust in such medical claims (I say moderate because, for example, some pharmaceutical companies have the horrifying habit of suppressing research that reflects unfavorably on their products).

But in addition, I think that you should state up front just exactly what would satisfy your demand for scientific analysis or testimony. Are statements made by medical doctors sufficient, or do you require peer reviewed journal articles? Because if it is the latter, then surely you must realize that some political and non-scientific consideration often goes into deciding who will be published and who will not. And that’s not to mention the fact that access to peer reviewed journals is far from readily available to the general public, including yourself. It doesn’t seem to be fair that you demand a peer-reviewed citation for a healing when you yourself are satisfied to link someone demanding evidence for speciation to a web site like Talk Origins

Well, I’ve not looked for peer-reviewed journals lately. When I lived in Chapel Hill, I or anyone could head over to the medical library on campus and look up almost any medical article you could imagine. That was part of my job.

But evidence comes in layers. If someone whom I trust–who has demonstrated rigorous thinking in other areas–says to me, “You should check out Journal of Neurophysical Research, Vol XVII, pp 21-28: there’s an article therein on spontaneous remission of medulla carcinoma amongst Jehovah’s Witnesses that provides convincing evidence of the power of prayer,” then I might swing by the library next time I’m in Chapel Hill and take a look at it. In other words, if a person has built up trust with me, I’m willing to do more work to get to see their evidence.

Once I see the article, I’ll look at several things:

1. On a close reading of it, does it seem to this layman that the researchers reached their conclusions carefully and soundly?
2. What are other scientists saying about this research? If criticisms are being raised, what are the natures of these criticisms? Do they seem to this layman to be reached carefully and soundly?
3. What are other scientists finding when they replicate the study?
   and so forth.

You raise a fair point that peer-reviewed studies are influenced by politics and so forth. That’s unfortunate, but so it goes. The influence isn’t, in my experience, overwhelming: I’m pretty sure I’ve seen peer-reviewed articles discussing the effects of prayer on health. And until someone proposes a superior method of disseminating information about such phenomena, I think it may be the best we’ve got.

In the end, though, while I can say the form in which I prefer the evidence to arrive, I can only say what’d be sufficient: I’m not saying what’s necessary. If cosmos or anyone has evidence in a form other than a peer-reviewed journal, I invite him or anyone to put it forth, and we can evaluate it on a case-by-case basis.

The fewer specifics there are, though, the more skeptical I’m going to be about it: and I’m pretty much going to dismiss any vague friend-of-a-friend case as wholly unconvincing.

Daniel

[Liberal]

I don’t think anyone can blame you for that, Left Hand of Dorkness. Your clarifications do indeed, on the whole, seem much more reasonable. If I hear you correctly, you’re basically saying that you’ll know what constitutes sufficient evidence once you have looked at it. And that’s okay, but if it is the case, then you must give leave of the other person to draw his own subjective conclusion as well about what constitutes for him sufficient evidence, and you ought not to consider his any more or less valid than yours. There is no deontic burden on either of you arising from demands of the other.

With respect to your specific questions:

But first, I didn’t ask for addresses or phone numbers: why did you add those into the example?

Rhetorical technique. Overreaching and withdrawn. But even asking for the names alone (as you did do) is not reasonable.

Do you agree that this is a more rigorous process than [paraphrased], “I have friends who are scientists and who have witnessed miracles”?

Yes, I do.

Now I’m going to link you to a website that makes healing claims which are, as far as I can tell, not denominational or even religious in any structured sense. The healer claims that the healings aren’t even miracles, but “natural”. By clicking the “Healings” link on the left, you can review a couple of hundred cases. (No names, but initials, ages, and locations are given.) I warn you in advance that the guy looks like a kook, almost Kramerish. But I’m confident that that will have no bearing on your evaluation. He even sounds kooky in his writings, but again, that’s neither here nor there.

Now, obviously I can’t vouch for whether its all a bunch of hooey or not, but he doesn’t charge for his services, and neither do the doctors he supposedly has in his medical science group. I don’t even know if they’re real. But I would be interested in your evaluation of whether, given that the information you find is legitimate, it would constitute sufficient evidence that healing might not be entirely bogus.

This link, Statements of Physicians is kind of hard to find, so I’m giving it to you directly.

After you’ve reviewed that, here’s the home page, where you can get to the aforementioned 200 cases: http://www.bruno-groening.org/english/default.htm

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Liberal

I don’t think anyone can blame you for that, Left Hand of Dorkness. Your clarifications do indeed, on the whole, seem much more reasonable. If I hear you correctly, you’re basically saying that you’ll know what constitutes sufficient evidence once you have looked at it. And that’s okay, but if it is the case, then you must give leave of the other person to draw his own subjective conclusion as well about what constitutes for him sufficient evidence, and you ought not to consider his any more or less valid than yours. There is no deontic burden on either of you arising from demands of the other.

Sure. I’m never going to tell someone they’re wrong for drawing conclusions from evidence; I tend to be frustratingly postmodern in that respect. Only if we accept the same gamerules will I do that.

That said, there are certain metrics by which I judge evidence, as stated in previous posts; it’s not just a matter of whim, or of some ineffable quality of the evidence. The more replicable, specific, and verifiable the evidence is, the more weight I’ll assign to it.

Also, while this isn’t very scientific of me: the more I trust a person won’t lead me astray, the more weight I give to the evidence they offer me. My sister, whom I love and who is wonderful, believes in a lot of stuff that I think is hooey; when she puts a novel theory in front of me, my first reaction is skepticism. My brother tends not to do that, so when he puts a novel theory in front of me, my first reaction is to trust it, and I’m willing to do more research into it.

Now I’m going to link you to a website that makes healing claims which are, as far as I can tell, not denominational or even religious in any structured sense.

…

But I would be interested in your evaluation of whether, given that the information you find is legitimate, it would constitute sufficient evidence that healing might not be entirely bogus.

I’m not really sure what you mean by “given that the information you find is legitimate.” What does “legitimate” mean here?

If the case histories are true, then they’re all true, and certainly it’d be worth looking at them. It’s not conclusive evidence, but it’d be enough to get other physicians to take a look at them.

The physicians’ testimonials on the site are wholly irrelevant. They don’t say, “I was able to repeat these results in other settings; I’ve analyzed Gruehner’s data and found it free from observer bias; Gruehner took alternative explanations into consideration and controlled for other variables adequately,” or anything like that. All the doctor testimonials say is, “This guy’s great!” which tells me very little.

(Caveat: I read a half-dozen case histories and about as many physicians’ testimonials before reaching these conclusions. If there are specific case histories or testimonials you find that rise above what I’m saying, please let me know which ones).

The case histories, however, could equally be written by victims of a fraud, or by the defrauder himself. So I’m not willing to stipulate their legitimacy for very long. It’s one of the advantages of the peer-review process that such claims in peer-review would be subject to open and spirited debate by other people with access to the original data.

Most importantly: I want someone who has no vested interest in this specific method’s success to have free and unfettered access to the data; I’ll be very interested in their conclusions.

Daniel

[Liberal]

You can always attend one of the lectures and possibly query the physicians yourself. The lectures are free, and there are four scheduled in the US this year.

http://www.bruno-groening.org/english/vortrag/defaultvortrag.htm

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Which scientists–Jesus and the Pope? Can you name names? And what do they disagree with me on: do they disagree that I’ve checked the source for myself and found nothing there, or do they disagree that there’s nothing there? What specific predictive hypotheses have these scientists proposed, and what replicable results have they achieved? How have they accounted for observer bias?

Yes those scientist. Maybe not the Pope. They would disagree with your conclusion that there’s nothing there which means you haven’t actually checked the source.
Specific hypotheses and replicable results. “Seek and ye shall find”
“If any man seeks wisdom let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally” and
“The truth will set you free.”

On the contrary: I’ve read them, and the best answer my curiosity can get is that you have no specific cases,

Thats right. I said as much in an earlier post and acknowledged that unexplained healings were not nessecarly miraculous. That explains why I’ve given no specific examples, yes?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@Mangetout

Plausibility is not the basis of science; it’s falsifiability - the theory of gravity is such that there are many simple ways in which it could be proven incorrect; repeated failure to prove it incorrect is a significant part of what establishes it as sound and reliable.

another good point. Yet there are areas where science says…we haven’t figured that out yet. Things unproven one way or the other. So we have theories which we hope are plausable.

I don’t know, but it sounds like maybe you have something in mind? Remember we’re talking about wide* scientific* acceptance.

Well , “the world is flat” comes to mind. I’m sure there are better ones but nothing specific at this time.

Let me pause here to say this is the most interesting message board I’ve ever found. Thought provoking and intelligent. Most of them eventually come to name calling and comments about my mother. Thanks everyone.

[Liberal]

@cosmosdan

another good point. Yet there are areas where science says…we haven’t figured that out yet. Things unproven one way or the other. So we have theories which we hope are plausable.

Science proves things one way only — false. It does not prove anything to be true. If it did, then there could never be any improvement to a scientific theory because once something is found to be “true”, the search is over. A scientific theory must be formulated in such a way that an experiment can be conducted that, if successful, would prove the theory false.

For example, suppose you wanted to test Einstein’s special theory. The theory suggests that an accelerated clock should run more slowly than a clock at rest. You can test it easily by accelerating a clock to a very high speed, and then comparing it to a previously synchronized stationary clock. If the high speed clock still is synchronized with the stationary clock, then the theory is successfully proved false. But if the high speed clock is slower than the stationary clock, then it cannot be said that the theory is true. The theory merely stands unless and until some other theory displaces it.

Truth cannot be derived scientifically, but only analytically (with logic, or some other analytical system). Take the assertion that 1 + 1 = 2, for example. You cannot prove by experiment that the assertion is true because, no matter how many times you add 1 + 1 and get 2, all you have shown is that you’ve always gotten the same answer but not that you MUST always in the future get the same answer every time you try.

To prove that 1 + 1 = 2, you must do something like this:

Let E be “there exists”
Let e be “as an element of”
Let N be the set of natural numbers
Let f be a function
Let S be “successor”

1. E1 e N, Ef e [sup]N[/sup] N

2. (a e N) -> (f(a) e N)

3. {x e N | f(x) = 1} = 0

4. (f(a) = f(b)) -> (a = b)

5. ((1 e S) AND (a e S -> f(a) e S) -> (N [symbol]Í[/symbol] S)

6. f(1) = S(1)

QED

(Credit to Giuseppe Peano)

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@Liberal

Science proves things one way only — false. It does not prove anything to be true. If it did, then there could never be any improvement to a scientific theory because once something is found to be “true”, the search is over. A scientific theory must be formulated in such a way that an experiment can be conducted that, if successful, would prove the theory false.

Thanks Liberal, That was very helpful. Question
Does the experiment always have to be aimed at proveing the theory false?

PArdon my clumsy example but

If my theory is that X is

then Y, will happen consistently

Z will consistently not happen

Are my my experiments on Y and Z both aimed at proveing X false?

When science discovers something exists that was previously unknown and then wants to discover the nature and qualities of that something, are those seperate theories?

Is
God is.
a different theory than
God is love?
I suppose it would be.

Here’s an interesting thought. Science only proves things false.
Some eastern religions describe the spiritual journey as a peeling away of illusions that we once thought were true, until only the truth remains. Like the layers of an onion. Once you discover something something is false you discard it and move on to the next layer.
I see that as similar to science. What do you think?

[Liberal]

@cosmosdan

Does the experiment always have to be aimed at proveing the theory false?

Yes. That’s the whole purpose of the experiment.

PArdon my clumsy example but

If my theory is that X is

then Y, will happen consistently

Z will consistently not happen

Are my my experiments on Y and Z both aimed at proveing X false?

Yes. After your experiment, if Y either does not happen consistently or z does happen consistently, then X -> (Y AND NOT(Z)) is false. One way to think of science is as a dynamic modus tollens.

When science discovers something exists that was previously unknown and then wants to discover the nature and qualities of that something, are those seperate theories?

Well, a discovery is not a theory.

Is
God is.
a different theory than
God is love?
I suppose it would be.

Yes, they are different. The first is a claim about ontology. The second is a claim about identity. But neither of those two theories is scientific. That’s because you cannot devise a falsifiable empirical test for the supernatural.

Here’s an interesting thought. Science only proves things false.
Some eastern religions describe the spiritual journey as a peeling away of illusions that we once thought were true, until only the truth remains. Like the layers of an onion. Once you discover something something is false you discard it and move on to the next layer.
I see that as similar to science. What do you think?

I think that it’s an interesting comparison. They do seem similar in that respect, but I would not conflate the two. Religion is about the metaphysical, and science is about the physical.

[Liberal]

I withdraw the comparison between science and modus tollens. The similarity is too vague, exceptional, and tenuous.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Liberal

You can always attend one of the lectures and possibly query the physicians yourself. The lectures are free, and there are four scheduled in the US this year.

http://www.bruno-groening.org/english/vortrag/defaultvortrag.htm

That’s true, but my time is limited, my finances even more so. From looking at their website, I don’t see much to suggest that there’s anything exceptional going on here; this is an area I’ll leave to other folks, unless and until stronger, more specific evidence of their success becomes more readily available.

cosmos, if “Seek and ye shall find” is a theory, I’ve falsified it.

Daniel

[Mangetout]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

another good point. Yet there are areas where science says…we haven’t figured that out yet. Things unproven one way or the other. So we have theories which we hope are plausable.

What *Lib said on this - nothing gets proven (except in a very informal sense) - it either gets falsified and discarded or remains in place as the best we currently have; some phenomenon may be observed tomorrow that falsifies our current theory of anything, but whatever we replace that theory with must be capable of explaining not only the new phenomenon, but all the other stuff that the old theory seemed adequate at explaining - this being the case, there are some scientific theories that are so fundamental to such a broad range of areas that it would require quite an exotic phenomenon to overturn them.

Well , “the world is flat” comes to mind. I’m sure there are better ones but nothing specific at this time.

We did say ‘accepted as scientific fact’ - was the apparent flatness of the world ever properly established by science (by which I mean the rigorous application of the scientific method)? I’d say not.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@Mangetout

What *Lib said on this - nothing gets proven (except in a very informal sense) - it either gets falsified and discarded or remains in place as the best we currently have;

Agreed

We did say ‘accepted as scientific fact’ - was the apparent flatness of the world ever properly established by science (by which I mean the rigorous application of the scientific method)? I’d say not.

True, but hasn’t scientific method changed over time? Hasn’t the definition of scientific fact changed as our knowledge increased. I’d say so.

[Uzi]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

Christianity in all its varied forms is only one concept of God and they can’t even agree on that. Their misconceptions and superstitions don’t render God less real.

The only reason you know about a ‘God’ in the first place is because of all those superstitions and misconceptions that other people’s religion is based upon. But, how do you differentiate a misconception from a truth? A superstition from a belief? Why is your belief not a superstition? Your truth not a misconception?

I agree with Czarcasm. An all-powerful, all-knowing god will know what it takes to have me believe in him. The argument that if you don’t believe after reading a book then nothing else will make you believe is ridiculous. God knows that is not enough for me and is willing to sacrifice me to hell for eternity. What would be sufficient proof? To quote Divine Shadow from calgary.general, “700 ft tall? Huge flowing white beard? Flanked by Angels? Yeah, I’d know it if I saw it”. At the very least it would make a person start to doubt his atheism.

But, I believe this is the real reason that god (assuming it exists) doesn’t provide proof of his existance, so I’ll add it to Andros’s list:
6. Because he wants to weed out all the credophiles. Would you want to spend eternity with a bunch of people who base their lives around fairy tales? Well neither does God.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Uzi

But, I believe this is the real reason that god (assuming it exists) doesn’t provide proof of his existance, so I’ll add it to Andros’s list:
6. Because he wants to weed out all the credophiles. Would you want to spend eternity with a bunch of people who base their lives around fairy tales? Well neither does God.

I don’t even want to spend my limited time here on Earth with a bunch of people who base their lives around fairy tales. But sadly, that’s what we have to deal with. Some of them are really smart, a lot of them are really nice, and just about all of them truly believe in an Invisible Pink Unicorn (or something equally likely)

Yet there is still no objective evidence of a ‘God’. ANY ‘God’. You can scream"I HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN!!!" until you’re blue in the face. It doesn’t make it any less of a ridiculous notion.

1. (“but… but… but… mummy and poppy TOLD me there was an IPU and they wouldn’t lie, now would they?”)

2. (or, “billions of people have believed in an IPU for millenia…billions of people couldn’t be wrong, now could they?”)

Answer #1. Not so much a lie as a shared delusion, junior.

Answer #2. Yes, yes they could be, and it looks as though they are. But if you really, REALLY believe hard enough maybe you’ll go to the Great Unicorn pasture in the sky.

1000 years from now (if God hasn’t commanded us to kill one another in the name of Holy Jihad or Holy Crusade) this sort of thing-- thousands upon thousands of words debating evidence of a wish, a dream, a myth–will be nothing but a sad yet quite amusing joke to whoever discovers these ancient messages.

I think it’s funny that ancient man thought that a dude drove a flaming chariot across the sky each day. Do you think so too or do you have some sort of serious and solemn respect for the earnest worship of Apollo?

[Othersider]

@I Love Me

I don’t even want to spend my limited time here on Earth with a bunch of people who base their lives around fairy tales. But sadly, that’s what we have to deal with. Some of them are really smart, a lot of them are really nice, and just about all of them truly believe in an Invisible Pink Unicorn (or something equally likely)

Your opinion, regardless of how strongly you may believe in it, is still that - your opinion. I and many other intelligent people on these forums and elsewhere would probably appreciate it if you’d get off your high horse and your nose out of the air.

[Liberal]

@Uzi

An all-powerful, all-knowing god will know what it takes to have me believe in him.

But doesn’t that presume that He wants your belief no matter what it takes? Maybe he doesn’t want it unless it’s voluntary. I mean, I could write a computer program that believes in me because it has to, but it is an infinitely pale shadow of when my wife, of her own free will says, “I believe in you.”

[Liberal]

@I Love Me

I don’t even want to spend my limited time here on Earth with a bunch of people who base their lives around fairy tales.

I don’t want to spend my limited time around anyone who uses strawmen born of ignorance and arrogance. To each his own, I suppose.

[Othersider]

@Liberal

But doesn’t that presume that He wants your belief no matter what it takes? Maybe he doesn’t want it unless it’s voluntary. I mean, I could write a computer program that believes in me because it has to, but it is an infinitely pale shadow of when my wife, of her own free will says, “I believe in you.”

Very good point, Liberal.

I’ve seen many people posit that God should know what it would take for skeptics to believe in Him…and we’ve brought up this point on several occasions, I think. If God proved to everyone that He existed, then nobody would have to “believe” in Him, we would know He was real - just like George Bush, Brad Pitt, and Barbra Streisand. It would just be a true fact.

Many theists suggest that God doesn’t prove to everyone, including skeptics, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that He exists, because He wants us to believe by faith, not by having irrefutable proof. I know it’s “convenient” (as the non-believer will say), but, as we said before, if it were any other way, there wouldn’t be any non-believers.

[Liberal]

He doesn’t even prove it to believers. There is nothing to prove. Existence is a trivial claim, and equally tenuous for all entities.