The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

[Seth]

Someone invoked me, and lo, I have appeared to do battle with the forces of illogic and unreason!

And now back to the OP...

In the 17 March issue of New Scientist magazine, is an item by Prof. Victor Stenger about looking at the idea of a deity from a science viewpoint. In other words : "Can science carry out research work to determine the truth or otherwise of the belief in deity?"

Stenger firmly believes that this lies well inside the bailiwick of science, and there is no reason why scientists should not carry out suitable investigations. The major flaw in this, is that while science can test the reality of a specific model of deity, like the Christian god, it cannot test all possible versions.

Some tests have already been done. A proper double blind study of the power of prayor in helping sick people get better showed no effect. other studies looked at the Near Death Experience, in which a secret note was left on a high shelf in an operating theatre, where the 'out of body' spirit could read it, but the surgeons could not see it. None of those reporting this experience could relate the contents of the note.

Stenger is definitely an atheist and the author of a book on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypoth ... 1591024811

Any further ideas on how we can scientifically test the God Hypothesis?

Difficult proposition, given the fact that God is (at least purportedly) an intelligent being capable of frustrating any attempt to "scientifically test" for his/her/its existence if he/she/it chooses to do so.

This is why the "study" to determine if prayer works is utter bullshit. The study falsely (and idiotically) presumes that prayer is a natural and repeatable phenomenon and that in every instance prayer is answered. The obvious flaw in this utterly stupid methodology is that a prayer is a request that God intervene in a particular situation. God, being a presumably sentient being with free will is not, contrary to the presumptions of the "researchers," obligated to intervene in every such situation and may in point of fact have known of the study and decided to decline to answer particular prayers precisely in order to conceal from science the "proof" it seeks while at the same time continuing to answer prayers and perform miracles in other instances where the results were not under scrutiny by "scientists" (actually idiots masquerading as scientists) intent on disproving God's existence.

However, this does not mean that the question of God's existence is not an entirely scientific question, merely that because the subject of the inquiry may not choose to cooperate and may choose to deliberately frustrate and deny "science" the "naturalistic" data it seeks.

You can't find scientific evidence of a lost tribe in Borneo if that tribe successfully conceals its existence from scientific investigation. I would have thought that the "scientists" who concocted the bogus prayer "study" would have figured that out, but evidently they are too arrogant and stupid to have done so.

[surreptitious57]

The Scientific Method is totally useless for investigating the existence of God since for that it would have to be
capable of referencing the meta physical : this is of course impossible since it is beyond the realm of reason
and logic which are the tools of investigation in the physical world : this is the reason many athiests are
actually agnostic on the question of His existence : we all are : irrespective of whether we believe or
not since it cannot be subject to falsification : reason why so many choose to believe in a higher
power is because of fear of death but if humans were immortal how ever religion would have
a significantly far less greater impact on civilisation than historically or currently has had

You also reference the Golden Rule suggesting it should be practiced by athiests : totally agree
but it should be a universal referenced by everyone whatever their belief or non belief : are
theists who are just as intolerant and the Golden Rule arguably applies to them more so
as it is a central tenet of theirs : all major world religions reference it in one form or
an other : now if we all lived our lives according to this one law and nothing else
humanity would be much the better for it although human nature is not hard
wired towards altruism : which is why it is so difficult to practice it on a
significant level : but that however is no excuse for self improvement
And should be the natural default position for all of us irrespective

[Blind groper]

On the golden rule.

Surveys have shown that, per capita, fewer atheists end up as convicted criminals compared to theists.
Assuming this is a general rule related to behaviour, atheists are better behaved than theists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Scientifically addressing the non-falsifiable is nailing jello to the wall.

Requiring faith in order to process the evidence that supports that faith is a little circular for my tastes, too.

[Pappa]

You also reference the Golden Rule suggesting it should be practiced by athiests : totally agree

Why?

I try to stick to it myself, as I feel it is right, but I don't see any reason why it definitely should be practiced by anyone. We have no obligation to act ethically any more than ants do. While most people would probably think being good to others is generally a good thing, I see no reason why that should or must be the case. Humans behaviour has a huge range that is 'normal' from an evolutionary perspective. Even sociopathy is within the range of normal to a degree... it's just at one end of a particular spectrum of human behaviour.

[Azathoth]

This is why the "study" to determine if prayer works is utter bullshit. The study falsely (and idiotically) presumes that prayer is a natural and repeatable phenomenon and that in every instance prayer is answered. The obvious flaw in this utterly stupid methodology is that a prayer is a request that God intervene in a particular situation. God, being a presumably sentient being with free will is not, contrary to the presumptions of the "researchers," obligated to intervene in every such situation and may in point of fact have known of the study and decided to decline to answer particular prayers precisely in order to conceal from science the "proof" it seeks while at the same time continuing to answer prayers and perform miracles in other instances where the results were not under scrutiny by "scientists" (actually idiots masquerading as scientists) intent on disproving God's existence.

Go on I will bite this once

Matthew 7:7 ”Ask, and it will be given to you seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

Matthew 21:22 And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.”

Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

John 14:13-14 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it

James 5:14-16 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another,that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.

[Coito ergo sum]

Difficult proposition, given the fact that God is (at least purportedly) an intelligent being capable of frustrating any attempt to "scientifically test" for his/her/its existence if he/she/it chooses to do so.

This is why the "study" to determine if prayer works is utter bullshit. The study falsely (and idiotically) presumes that prayer is a natural and repeatable phenomenon and that in every instance prayer is answered. The obvious flaw in this utterly stupid methodology is that a prayer is a request that God intervene in a particular situation. God, being a presumably sentient being with free will is not, contrary to the presumptions of the "researchers," obligated to intervene in every such situation and may in point of fact have known of the study and decided to decline to answer particular prayers precisely in order to conceal from science the "proof" it seeks while at the same time continuing to answer prayers and perform miracles in other instances where the results were not under scrutiny by "scientists" (actually idiots masquerading as scientists) intent on disproving God's existence.

Certainly an interesting point you make, Seth. However, what we find when prayer is studied is that samples of folks praying for patients or for things to happen in general are compared to the results for samples in which no prayers are said. Statistically, there is no difference in result. We do not reduce the number of hurricanes or natural disasters through prayer. We do not cure more people who are prayed for, etc.

Now, you are correct, that that may be because God, whenever we try to study prayers, intentionally makes sure that the prayed for sample looks the same in the end as the non-prayed for sample, and he makes sure that whenever we try to look for situations where we would think to expect prayer to have an impact, if it worked, that we will not see a difference. That may be true.

All that means is that using the best available information, we can find no verifiable and critically robust reason to believe prayer works. I remember you, in the past, putting the onus on atheists to produce verifiable and critically robust (your term) evidence for the non-existence of "God." Well, do we have verifiable, critically robust evidence for the efficacy of prayer?

However, this does not mean that the question of God's existence is not an entirely scientific question, merely that because the subject of the inquiry may not choose to cooperate and may choose to deliberately frustrate and deny "science" the "naturalistic" data it seeks.

Well, it does move the question to to the "unfalsifiable" end of the spectrum, doesn't it?

"There is a dragon in my garage."
"I don't see him..."
"He's invisible."
"Ok, I will walk around with a long stick and wave it around really fast to see if I will hit him, and we'll pump the talcum powder in there to see if sticks to him so we can see the dragon."
"He is incorporeal, so talcum powder won't stick to him and sticks won't hit him."
"O.k, I will bring in an infrared machine to detect his dragon fire."
"The fire is heatless."
"I will put dust all over the floor, so he will leave foot prints."
"He never touches the floor."
"I will bring in devices to measure electromagnetic energy, magnetism, friction, light distortion and even the tiny gravitational distortion of a body in the air in the garage...."
"This dragon can get around all those tests, and they won't find him."

"So, we can run all the tests we want, but the dragon can make sure he frustrates them. Why should we believe there is a dragon there?"
"Oh, I know he's there. I can feel him. If you REALLY believe, then you'll feel him too. But, you have to believe first, then you'll feel him."

You can't find scientific evidence of a lost tribe in Borneo if that tribe successfully conceals its existence from scientific investigation. I would have thought that the "scientists" who concocted the bogus prayer "study" would have figured that out, but evidently they are too arrogant and stupid to have done so.

Sure, but we wouldn't believe that there was a lost tribe in borneo unless and until that we found verifiable and critically robust evidence of their existence either now or in the past. Until then, the most we could say is "there might be a lost tribe in Borneo, but as of now we have no reason to believe there is."

[trdsf]

On the golden rule.

Surveys have shown that, per capita, fewer atheists end up as convicted criminals compared to theists.
Assuming this is a general rule related to behaviour, atheists are better behaved than theists.

That's probably because atheists understand that there's no afterlife during which one can hope to make up for misbehavior. Responsibility needs to be taken in this life because there isn't another one in which to do it, so it's better to avoid doing things for which there's a penalty.

[surreptitious57]

You also reference the Golden Rule suggesting it should be practiced by athiests : totally agree

I try to stick to it myself as I feel it is right but I don't see any reason why it definitely should be practiced by anyone We have no obligation to act ethically any more than ants do While most people would probably think being good to others is generally a good thing I see no reason why that should or must be the case Humans behaviour has a huge range that is normal from an evolutionary perspective Even sociopathy is within the range of normal to a degree its just at one end of a particular spectrum of human behaviour

The Golden Rule is referenced by all the major world religions and is universally regarded as the parameter for
moral human behaviour : sometimes philosophers make a distinction between it and the Silver Rule though
this is just it in another form : was evolutionary advantageous when homo sapiens lived in tribes : the
general well being of the group or groups was better guaranteed if there was co operation and not
conflict and this has been used as a yardstick ever since : you cannot compare humans to ants :
ants have pre determined roles within their colonies which they adhere to automatically :
humans have much larger brains and free will to determine how they behave : it is
not set in stone : we also have the ability to moralise and to philosophise which
also determines how we behave : also we have been here for two hundred
thousand years now : however if there was a practical alternative to
the Golden Rule would have been discovered by now : it has not

[Blind groper]

That's probably because atheists understand that there's no afterlife during which one can hope to make up for misbehavior. Responsibility needs to be taken in this life because there isn't another one in which to do it, so it's better to avoid doing things for which there's a penalty.

I have a different explanation.
Criminal behaviour tends to be associated with uneducated people and the lower socio-economic groups in society.

Atheism is more common among the more educated - and especially those well educated in topics like science, medicine, and engineering. Such people do not tend to fall into the "criminal classes."

[Seth]

The Scientific Method is totally useless for investigating the existence of God since for that it would have to be
capable of referencing the meta physical : this is of course impossible since it is beyond the realm of reason
and logic which are the tools of investigation in the physical world : this is the reason many athiests are
actually agnostic on the question of His existence : we all are : irrespective of whether we believe or
not since it cannot be subject to falsification

This falsely presumes that God is "metaphysical" and not subject to falsification. This is an iteration of the Atheist's fallacy wherein you presume that the claims of theists about the metaphysical nature of God are true as a premise in your argument in which you conclude that God can never be scientifically examined because God is ALLEGED TO BE "metaphysical." This is a clear affirmation of the consequent and is a logical fallacy. You cannot use any human theistic description of God as a premise for an argument either supporting or dismissing the existence of God because, quite simply, THEISTS MIGHT BE WRONG!

If theists are incorrect in their claims about the nature of God, for whatever reason, it should be painfully obvious that any refuting argument denying either the existence or falsifiability of God immediately fails on that failed premise.

Agnostic Atheists are merely evading the most essential question in any investigation of the existence of God, which is "what is the scientific definition of God that must be used in any attempt at scientificaly investigating he/she/it?"

They evade it deliberately most of the time, using precisely the same illogic as you have used to justify their denials of the existence of God. "God cannot exist because God is supernatural, because nothing supernatural can exist because there is only nature." It's childlike circular reasoning, you see. That's why I created the Atheist's Fallacy in the first place, because that tautological train of though is perhaps the most common Atheist fallacy ever seen on the face of the planet, throughout recorded history. It's so pervasive among Atheists that it deserves it's own special fallacy.

[trdsf]

That's probably because atheists understand that there's no afterlife during which one can hope to make up for misbehavior. Responsibility needs to be taken in this life because there isn't another one in which to do it, so it's better to avoid doing things for which there's a penalty.

I have a different explanation.
Criminal behaviour tends to be associated with uneducated people and the lower socio-economic groups in society.

Atheism is more common among the more educated - and especially those well educated in topics like science, medicine, and engineering. Such people do not tend to fall into the "criminal classes."

I can see that, except for the incidence of corporate crime, perpetrated by other educated individuals (if an MBA counts as being educated). It'd be interesting to see if the Ken Lays and Bernie Madoffs and so on identify as religious or not. If they do, that would at least be supportive data for your explanation.

[Svartalf]

Well, white collar crime of most kinds... or the simple fact that the highly educated people in finance and politics seem to have absolutely no sense of ethics, and further their wealth and power hy hook or crook.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Humans behaviour has a huge range that is 'normal' from an evolutionary perspective. Even sociopathy is within the range of normal to a degree... it's just at one end of a particular spectrum of human behaviour.

Is/ought.

[Thumpalumpacus]

God cannot exist because God is supernatural, because nothing supernatural can exist because there is only nature.

I'm not sure which agnostic atheists you're running around with, but they're clearly not very bright.

This agnostic atheist is such because: 1) he doesn't know whether or not any god(s) exist(s), and 2) he lacks any faith that they do in fact exist.

Strictly speaking, that is all my agnostic atheism means to me, your crude strawman notwithstanding.