# Randi tackles religion vs. science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857 "2003-07-25T13:47:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/201 "2003-07-28T17:38:16Z")
Admittedly, there _is_ a way in which God could interact materially with physical objects: since God is omnipotent, the Creator can mask interaction with the physical world in such a way that measurement of this is impossible. In fact, God must actually give this immeasurability _preference_ over using Godly powers to do things, like, cure folks of diseases or stop war. After all, if God places feelings in our minds, how is it that these feelings never come in a way that is best attributed to divine intervention? Certainly some objective information would have been transferred by now, if only a simultaneous feeling shared by thousands of worshippers physically isolated from each other. I see no other way, other than deliberate obfuscation, in which a divine power can interact with the physical world and not leave empirically measurable evidence. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/202 "2003-07-28T19:24:24Z")
Actually, no He couldn’t. Omnipotence is much more limited than most people realize. It requires (and implies) omniscience, and that simply isn’t possible for anything that can interact with the rest of the universe. Good try, though. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/203 "2003-07-28T20:13:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > **Are you in any way using that preference as a component in defining or deciding your acceptance or rejection of any particular worldview?** Doubtless you will think I am. I think love, beauty, etc, is deeper than biological chemistry. I do not think we live in such a sterile world. You will invariably chalk this up to my preferences dictating my worldview – to seeing what I want to see rather than what is. You are free to think so. I cannot prove otherwise, although my sense of things is that I am not doing so. \*\* > [@](#): > > Impossible to respond to.\*\* Actually, it’s quite easy to respond to. You will simply reply that it is better to pull aside the curtain and deal with the consequences. Yes, the Wizard is less scary – less intense, if you will – once the curtain is drawn back, but it is better to deal with that negative consequence than never to know who’s pulling the levers. I will retort that, in this case, the man behind the curtain is an imposter, and that we get the ill effects of pulling back the curtain without actually learning the truth. And we will proceed with the discussion from there. That’s the last bit of debate advice I’ll give you. Make of it what you will.\*\* > [@](#): > > How about answering my question: “If not, why would you use it as a basis for your worldview?” \*\* Because it is valid for that purpose. Use the right tool for the job. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/204 "2003-07-28T20:51:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*What part of “I cannot prove the spiritual” don’t you understand? If I had evidence beyond my inherent sense of it, I could prove it, couldn’t I? \*\* Why do you think the existence of evidence constitutes proof? First of all, proof is the wrong metric, because things of this nature can never be proven. 100 years ago scientists thought that F=ma was “proven” - they were wrong. Consider a trial. Both sides produce evidence, but the verdict (which is a reasonable substitute for proof here) comes out one way. I was just relaxing your self-imposed (I believe) requirement for proof. If I read you correctly, not only do you not have a proof, you don’t have evidence either. > [@](#): > > \*\*I think much of the Bible is allegorical. But I did not say God _never_ interacts with the universe, only that He rarely chooses to do so; indeed, I specifically noted that I think He kicked off this whole party, lighting the fuse for the Big Bang. > \*\* Okay, does your inherent sense of the spiritual come from God? If so, then God is interacting with the material - indirectly - through this, since you materially type in your experiences. Where the boundary between the spiritual and the physical is is another matter - but it is somewhere between God and your keyboard, right? If God is not involved in your sense, then as far as I can tell you’re blowing smoke. That’s cool, since you’re not frightening small children with tales of the devil. > [@](#): > > \*\*Depends on what you mean by “rational.” All reasoning depends on first principles. If you take as a first principle that only the materially measurable is real, then yes, religion is irrational. If, on the other hand, you take as a first principle that the universe is not limited to the materially measurable, it is not. That dichotomy is essentially the product of competing worldviews, and not of some defect in the cognitive processes of one party. \*\* I do wish we’d get past this materially measurable stuff. Is a thought materially measurable? Well, the impact of a thought is, either on a person thinking about moving an arm and then doing so, or even by measuring the brain activity correlated with a thought. Does the thought cause the brain activity, or does the brain activity cause the thought? An interesting question, but in any case the impact of the thought can be measured, which is all that was claimed. Similarly, the impact of the spiritual should be measured. Now, if you believe that god’s impact on the world is indistinguishable from that of random processes, except that it is goal directed, all bets are off. You have set up a non-falsifiable situation, indistinguishable in principle from last-Thursdayism. Finally, as has been said over and over, a spiritual force that never causes a physical effect, even indirectly, is the same as nothing at all. If you want to believe in invisible dragons in your garage, fine, but I’ll still call that irrational. Amusing, cute perhaps, but irrational. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/205 "2003-07-28T21:00:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Doubtless you will think I am. I think love, beauty, etc, is deeper than biological chemistry. I do not think we live in such a sterile world. You will invariably chalk this up to my preferences dictating my worldview – to seeing what I want to see rather than what is. You are free to think so. I cannot prove otherwise, although my sense of things is that I am not doing so. \*\* If you “sense” that you aren’t letting your preferences dictate your worldview, what is? From what does your worldview derive? Also, you’re erring in using the word “invariably”; I can’t imagine you’re rude enough to have meant to use that word. “Indubitably” fits much better. > [@](#): > > **Actually, it’s quite easy to respond to. You will simply reply that it is better to pull aside the curtain and deal with the consequences. Yes, the Wizard is less scary – less intense, if you will – once the curtain is drawn back, but it is better to deal with that negative consequence than never to know who’s pulling the levers. I will retort that, in this case, the man behind the curtain is an imposter, and that we get the ill effects of pulling back the curtain without actually learning the truth. And we will proceed with the discussion from there.** No, you’re utterly missing the point and misinterpreting your own analogy, which is an inevitable consequence of drawing an analogy as far as you’ve had. You see, responding as you said would, given the analogy you’ve used so far, mean that I acknowledge that the Wizard is less scary once the curtain is pulled aside, which in turn means that _Romeo and Juliet_ is less intense once we know that love is a chemical reaction, and so on. You should keep track of your own analogies, and not offer me erroneous “advice”. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/206 "2003-07-28T21:02:41Z")
This argument always is fun, but futile in the end. You cannot convince someone of God, either you believe or you don’t. If I need to _convince_ you, I have already lost. Belief in God fly’s in the face of every scientific tenant out there, their is no way around that, period. You cant measure God, you cannot reproduce God in a lab, you cannot set up an experiment for God and produce predictable results everytime, and you cannot touch God. I know that, and accept that, but yet I still believe. There are no words beyond that I can use to explain myself any better. While this may not make me “bright” it is who I am and I will not apologize or defend that beyond what I said above. However, to the OP…I do not believe organized religion a bad thing. I think any organization that stifles creativity and breeds hatred, and intolerance is a bad thing! Sadly, organized religion thru the years has done exactly that far to many times. But lets not confuse faith with religion. I have faith, but I don’t subscribe to any one religion. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/207 "2003-07-28T21:12:46Z")
One data point on biology - knowing the physical and chemical mechanisms of arousal doesn’t make arousal any less arousing. Reading studies about how and why we find women attractive doesn’t make a pretty girl any less pretty. I don’t know about you, but I don’t lose emotions by understanding them. One more short question, Dewey, in case you think you’ve already answered my question above. Do you think the expression of your or anyone else’s spiritual experience is in any way connected to the parallel spiritual universe you speak of? Or is your spiritual sense totally derived from observation of the physical, and not in any way directly or indirectly connected to the spiritual universe? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/208 "2003-07-28T22:14:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Voyager \* > **I was just relaxing your self-imposed (I believe) requirement for proof. If I read you correctly, not only do you not have a proof, you don’t have evidence either.** None that can be objectively shown to another, no. You are correct there. \*\* > [@](#): > > Okay, does your inherent sense of the spiritual come from God? If so, then God is interacting with the material - indirectly - through this, since you materially type in your experiences. Where the boundary between the spiritual and the physical is is another matter - but it is somewhere between God and your keyboard, right? \*\* I’ll grant that there is some connection between my physical and spiritual sides, and this can be described as God interacting with the physical. I’m not sure how you measure its impact on me, other than by taking my word for it. \*\* > [@](#): > > I do wish we’d get past this materially measurable stuff. Is a thought materially measurable? Well, the impact of a thought is, either on a person thinking about moving an arm and then doing so, or even by measuring the brain activity correlated with a thought. Does the thought cause the brain activity, or does the brain activity cause the thought? An interesting question, but in any case the impact of the thought can be measured, which is all that was claimed. Similarly, the impact of the spiritual should be measured. \*\* See above. I am a different person because of the spiritual. I can’t prove that because you only get one shot at this lifetime. Unless you can bring in the “evil Spock” (or, in this case, the non-spiritual Dewey) from a parallel dimension, you have nothing but my word to go on. I realize that’s inadequate. I don’t expect anyone to buy into that on my say-so. I think it correct nevertheless. \*\* > [@](#): > > Now, if you believe that god’s impact on the world is indistinguishable from that of random processes, except that it is goal directed, all bets are off. You have set up a non-falsifiable situation, indistinguishable in principle from last-Thursdayism. \*\* I think God has an impact on people internally. I don’t believe he saves people from earthquakes or helps football players score touchdowns. On preview, I see your additional question in your following post, BTW, but I’m not sure how to answer it. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Priceguy_ > **If you “sense” that you aren’t letting your preferences dictate your worldview, what is? From what does your worldview derive?** My own innate sense of the world. That is partly based on observation (per Oliver Wedall Jones above) and partly on my own internal _je ne sais quoi_.\*\* > [@](#): > > You see, responding as you said would, given the analogy you’ve used so far, mean that I acknowledge that the Wizard is less scary once the curtain is pulled aside, which in turn means that Romeo and Juliet is less intense once we know that love is a chemical reaction, and so on. \*\* OK, I admit I was hoping you’d bite. Can’t blame a guy for tryin’ eh? * * * Ultimately, though, **Dob** is right, and notes a theme I’ve tried to keep in my posts here. I can’t prove God, and think it would be folly to try. I’m not looking to _convince_ anyone that He exists. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/209 "2003-07-29T00:13:56Z")
Something interesting I’ve noted. I find it odd that regular theists on this board, such as **Dewey** and **Poly** , tend to state their beliefs as specialized and personal- IE, they don’t necessarily believe or agree with standard, ‘classic’ church teachings, and agree that God and the miracles cannot be proven, they just _know_ He exists. Whereas more mainline theists, such as **His4ever** , tend to fall by the wayside, or simply not return after a flurry of tract-ridden posts. I believe the difference is significant, and telling. I also note that, of the two former examples, **Poly** insists God saved him personally by intervention, while **Dewey** has repeatedly said he’s sure that God _does not_ intervene on that level. I find this too, very interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/210 "2003-07-29T02:24:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Actually, no He couldn’t. > > Omnipotence is much more limited than most people realize. It requires (and implies) omniscience, and that simply isn’t possible for anything that can interact with the rest of the universe. > > Good try, though. \*\* How so, other than meta-omniscience and -potence? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/211 "2003-07-29T02:47:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > \*\*I also note that, of the two former examples, **Poly** insists God saved him personally by intervention, while **Dewey** has repeatedly said he’s sure that God _does not_ intervene on that level. \*\* Point of clarification: I’ve noted that God tends to stay out of the physical, by which I mean I’m not a big believer in miracles and whatnot. God doesn’t help football players score touchdowns. I do think that God makes a very real, very personal intervention with willing human beings – I just think that intervention takes place on a spiritual rather than physical level. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/212 "2003-07-29T03:50:16Z")
> [@](#): > > I find it odd that regular theists on this board, such as **Dewey** and **Poly** , tend to state their beliefs as specialized and personal- IE, they don’t necessarily believe or agree with standard, ‘classic’ church teachings, and agree that God and the miracles cannot be proven, they just know He exists. > > Whereas more mainline theists, such as **His4ever** , tend to fall by the wayside, or simply not return after a flurry of tract-ridden posts. [quibble] **Poly** is actually mainline while **His4ever** is an example of a splinter movement arising in late 19th century America and flowing back toward Britain in limited quantities through the 20th century. There are a few issues in which **Poly** may appear a bit more heterodox than strict Anglican tradition, but he is still much closer to tradition than **H4**. (It is just that the prominence of Falwell, Robertson, Swaggart, and a few others on American TV has skewed the view of who is truly mainline.) [/quibble] ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/213 "2003-07-29T08:09:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*None that can be objectively shown to another, no. You are correct there. > \*\* Thank you. Now we’re getting somewhere. \*\*I’ll grant that there is some connection between my physical and spiritual sides, and this can be described as God interacting with the physical. I’m not sure how you measure its impact on me, other than by taking my word for it. \*\* Whether the impact comes from a spiritual realm, or inside you, or from external stimuli that you don’t recognize, of course we should all take your word for it. The impact on you is not in dispute, only the source of it. \*\*See above. I am a different person because of the spiritual. I can’t prove that because you only get one shot at this lifetime. Unless you can bring in the “evil Spock” (or, in this case, the non-spiritual Dewey) from a parallel dimension, you have nothing but my word to go on. I realize that’s inadequate. I don’t expect anyone to buy into that on my say-so. I think it correct nevertheless. \*\* An alternative explanation is that you are a different person because you believe in the spiritual, not because there is such a thing. I tend to think that many people have the need for spirituality wired in. I know people who have wandered from religion to religion. I don’t have this need, but I don’t dispute it exists for many. I’ll even happily admit you might be a better person for believing what you do. None of this means that this spiritual realm exists. \*\*I think God has an impact on people internally. I don’t believe he saves people from earthquakes or helps football players score touchdowns. \*\* Or belief in God has this impact. Anyhow, next step. Do you believe that God, spiritual as he is, has any sort of consistent impact upon people connected to him? You have some sort of a view of god, based on his impact on you. (This is not to say you claim to understand or have a full view of god.) Your god does not help football players. Now, someone else who claims he is connected to god says that god sees every sparrow fall. I am sure that for every claim you make about god, we can find an equally spiritual person making a contradictory claim. Are some of these people not connected? Are there multiple gods. Does god tell every person what they want to hear about him? The point here is that once you admit that there is some connection to the physical, we can start testing. We test people’s perceptions by asking them about it all the time, we can do the same with the god perception. \*\* On preview, I see your additional question in your following post, BTW, but I’m not sure how to answer it. \*\* Actually, you already have, and honestly also. Extenting Doc Nickel’s observation, it seems to me that the theists who admit their belief is irrational are the most rational, while those who claim that the inerrant Bible is totally true and rational are the least rational. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/214 "2003-07-29T10:57:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I think the soul of a man encompasses more than the merely physical. Firing synapses are part of the picture, but only part. \*\* -Of course. Software is merely a very specific pattern of ones and zeroes, yet in those patterns we can have anything- literally. From Windows XP to “Doom” to _Shrek_. Those same ones and zeroes can form Mozart’s _Requiem_ or KMFDM’s _Go To Hell_. But at the base, they are simply ones and zeroes, laid out in complex patterns. At it’s base, cognition, thought, philosophy, that which you call a _soul_, an individual’s _ID_, is merely the interaction of synapses, acting very much like the transistors in a computer. The brains of Edward Teller, Von Neumann and Marie Curie work (or worked) in the same way, with the same synapses, with the same electrochemistry, as the brains of Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh or Saddam Hussein. The order in which those synapses fire- the _software_ if you will- is indeed different. There can be no question Uday Hussein had something of a different outlook than Mahatmas Ghandi. It is that ephemeral “software” that comprises your _spirit_. Each of us generated our own ID, our own philosophy, our own worldview. That ID, that “spirit”, is indeed a fine and wonderful thing, a sublime and unique program that can do marvelous things. But it is still merely a collection of electrical impulses recorded in a complex neurochemical array. You wish to believe there’s more to it than that? Fine, I await whatever evidence, however anectodal, you might have. You wish to believe that knowing the process strips away some or all of the majesty of the thing itself? What if knowing the process _makes that thing more interesting_? I know how the Greeks carved marble into statuary- does that make the images of Julius Agustus any less fascinating? No- indeed, knowing the effort it took to wrest that image from _rock_ makes it additionally interesting; not only on an aesthetic level- the image is so lifelike, you can see the worry on his face!- but in a technical sense as well- this is marble, _stone!_- yet the artist shaped it as if it had been soft wax! I know how the sight of a pretty woman causes the brain to send out subtle signals, redirecting blood flow to induce tumescence. Does that make her any less attractive? I know that neither Snoopy nor Garfield can talk, I know that Opus was not eligible for the office of President, and I know Hobbes the stuffed tiger did not come to life. Did I find those characters and their jokes and antics any less funny? > [@](#): > > **Point of clarification: I’ve noted that God tends to stay out of the physical, by which I mean I’m not a big believer in miracles and whatnot.** -Then you are at odds with the majority of Christianity, most of whom believe that not only does God control or oversee all- from the growth of flowers to the beauty of sunsets to the cuteness of puppies- but that you can beg of Him any favor if you simply ask in the right manner. They assume groups can band together and ask collectively for what they feel would be a worthy boon- Our pastor is suffering from terminal philtrum cancer, could you please send it into remission, Mr. God, sir? How do you reconcile this difference? Why do you assume your viewpoint is correct, theirs is not? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/215 "2003-07-29T12:49:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Point of clarification: I’ve noted that God tends to stay out of the physical, by which I mean I’m not a big believer in miracles and whatnot. God doesn’t help football players score touchdowns. I do think that God makes a very real, very personal intervention with willing human beings – I just think that intervention takes place on a spiritual rather than physical level. \*\* You’re not going to convince a lot of us that there is a “spiritual” rather than “physical” level. If God does intervene, God does so on a physical level, period. The reason it would seem spiritual is that the manner in which this is accomplished is not identified yet. Again, if God actually makes a difference in the universe, this is a physical change, period. A change in your mindset represents a change in your brain chemistry, period. Whether that is analogous to some other change on the spiritual level is irrelevant: while it _may_ be a spiritual change, a change in attitude it _definitely_ is a physical change. Now, why can we not identify the ways in which God causes changes in the universe? There are only 3 options I can see: – A god does not intervene. – God intervenes measurably, but we don’t have the means to detect it yet. – God intentionally obscures the objective evidence. Of course, your counter is probably “no intervention on physical: spiritual!” To which I would say, how exactly would this interact with the physical? If it is by changing people’s ideas, or communicating with them, this is a physical change, even if it cannot be measured. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/216 "2003-07-29T13:40:44Z")
Don’t waste your time, **Ludovic**. **Dewey** is incapable of perceiving contradictions or problems in his interpretations of events. His God is spiritual by definition. **Dewey** has no idea what it means to be spiritual _instead of_ physical, or what properties he’s asserting with the category “spiritual”, or why God can affect the physical world without being physical while the defining characteristic of physical things is that they affect the spiritual world. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/217 "2003-07-29T13:47:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > **-Of course. Software is merely a very specific pattern of ones and zeroes, yet in those patterns we can have anything- literally. From Windows XP to “Doom” to _Shrek_.** Now you’ve put the rather ugly image of God-as-John-Carmack in my head. Or even worse, John Romero. _shudder_ \*\* > [@](#): > > -Then you are at odds with the majority of Christianity, most of whom believe that not only does God control or oversee all- from the growth of flowers to the beauty of sunsets to the cuteness of puppies- but that you can beg of Him any favor if you simply ask in the right manner. > > They assume groups can band together and ask collectively for what they feel would be a worthy boon- Our pastor is suffering from terminal philtrum cancer, could you please send it into remission, Mr. God, sir?\*\* There is a scene in [_Shadowlands_](http://us.imdb.com/Title?0108101), a fantastic film based on a slice of C.S. Lewis’ life, that sums up my view on prayer nicely. I’m not sure if Lewis ever spoke these precise words, but they are consistent with his viewpoint: > [@](#): > > Lewis has recently secretly been married to Joy Gresham, an American writer. She is dying from cancer. At Oxford, a colleague of Lewis’, Harry, asks if there is any news. Lewis replies that there is good news – meaning the marriage. Harry is unaware of the marriage and assumes Lewis means Joy’s medical condition is better; he responds “I know how hard you’ve been praying … Now, God is answering your prayer.” > > “That’s not why I pray, Harry.” Lewis responds. “I pray because I can’t help myself. I pray because I’m helpless. I pray because the need flows out of me all the time, waking and sleeping. It doesn’t change God; it changes _me_.” Incidentally, while I was Googling the text of that scene, I ran across [a sermon](http://www.members.shaw.ca/sermon/C98/Proper1298.html) that used it. It’s a nice piece. I found this passage particularly striking: > [@](#): > > “It doesn’t change God; it changes me.” The prayer asks “thy will be done.” Prayer is not a message scribbled on a note, jammed into a bottle and tossed into the sea in hopes that it will wash up someday on God’s shoreline. Prayer is communion with God. We speak to God, but God touches, embraces, shapes, and changes us. Whether we pray for rain or pray for sunshine, our prayer is answered, because in the act of praying we receive the gift we really seek-intimacy with God, so much so that we become godly in all that we do. True dat. \*\* > [@](#): > > How do you reconcile this difference? Why do you assume your viewpoint is correct, theirs is not? \*\* I think very few people actually believe that prayer actually operates as a cosmic wish list, even if they profess as much; too many of their petitions go unanswered for that to be so. I think even when people pray “please let X happen” (and I do that, too), what they are really seeking (perhaps unconsciously) is closeness to God. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/218 "2003-07-29T14:25:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ludovic \* > \*\*You’re not going to convince a lot of us that there is a “spiritual” rather than “physical” level. \*\* This would be worrisome if I was concerned with convincing you. As I’ve stated repeatedly, I am not. I am not looking to convert anyone. God cannot be proved. If this stuff doesn’t strike a chord in you, I cannot argue you into believing it. \*\* > [@](#): > > Again, if God actually makes a difference in the universe, this is a physical change, period. A change in your mindset represents a change in your brain chemistry, period. Whether that is analogous to some other change on the spiritual level is irrelevant: while it _may_ be a spiritual change, a change in attitude it _definitely_ is a physical change.\*\* Please see my earlier reply to **Voyager**. **TVAA** : Stop being a jerk. I understand that spirituality is problematic. I think I’ve been entirely up-front about that. What you cannot seem to understand is that someone can intellectually grasp those problems and yet still find spirituality compelling. As Emerson put it, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Some contradictions are acceptable. And this, really, is my whole beef with the OP’s article. It isn’t enough to say that God cannot be proven. No, no, no. It must also be said that people who find the spiritual compelling are unintelligent, “not-bright,” delusional, “credophilic,” suffering from some defect in their ability to reason. It isn’t enough to point out that God is inconsistent with empiricism – it must also be said that atheists are more intellectually honest, aware, and intelligent than their theistic counterparts. How unbelievably arrogant and obnoxious. At least I’m up front about my worldview’s limitations. And I recognize that, though I think I’m right, I may well be wrong. What’s particularly annoying about guys like **TVAA** is not his worldview, but the metaphysical certainty with which he asserts that worldview. _He might be wrong, too_, but he cannot seem to bring himself to acknowledge that fact. A dose of humility would be useful. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/219 "2003-07-29T14:34:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **And this, really, is my whole beef with the OP’s article. It isn’t enough to say that God cannot be proven. No, no, no. It must also be said that people who find the spiritual compelling are unintelligent, “not-bright,” delusional, “credophilic,” suffering from some defect in their ability to reason.** No. Not people who “find the spiritual compelling”. Don’t you think we’d all like to go to Heaven after we die? Don’t you think we’d all like a perfectly loving and merciful God to look after us? I can see the appeal. People who believe in these notions simply because they like them, however, that’s a different story. Yes, I think there’s a defect in their ability to reason. Else they would not believe it. > [@](#): > > **It isn’t enough to point out that God is inconsistent with empiricism – it must also be said that atheists are more intellectually honest, aware, and intelligent than their theistic counterparts. How unbelievably arrogant and obnoxious.** But it’s true. You’ve said it yourself (which does, I’ll cheerfully admit, make you remarkably honest): you have no support or evidence for your view. You embrace it anyway. That is utterly illogical. > [@](#): > > \*\*At least I’m up front about my worldview’s limitations. And I recognize that, though I think I’m right, I may well be wrong. What’s particularly annoying about guys like **TVAA** is not his worldview, but the metaphysical certainty with which he asserts that worldview. _He might be wrong, too_, but he cannot seem to bring himself to acknowledge that fact. A dose of humility would be useful. \*\* Oh, I’m sure **TVAA** admits that he could be wrong. I certainly do. It’s also possible that there are Invisible Pink Unicorns making a nest in my underpants as we speak. Given the evidence at hand, however, it seems much more likely that we’re right. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/220 "2003-07-29T14:47:08Z")
What **Dewey** does not understand is that, once the inevitable possibility of operator error is acknowledged, it is indeed possible to be metaphysically certain of the validity of arguments. His problem is that realizing that certainty is possible requires a high level of conceptual precision that he’s just not capable of. “Worldviews” have nothing to do with it. Conceptual uncertainty arises when we attempt to link our concepts with the real, objective world. To paraphrase Albert Einstein: to the degree to which knowledge is about the real world, it is not certain; to the degree to which knowledge is certain, it does not pertain to the real world. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857.md?page=12)