Science, faith, and theists

[Little lunch]

So if I see a doctor and ask him to test me for a disease I know I don't have, wouldn't he just test me by process of elimination?

The whole atheism movement is one big test and the process of elimination is complete.

What your doing, Michael, is asking us what sought of test you should use to test for a disease that doesn't exist.

I do like your presence here. Maybe some of us will start to realise that being a theist does not equal unintelligence and vice versa. :-)

[Michael]

So to recap, Brian said ...

You don't dare bring your belief into a lab because you know damn well you don't even have anymore a starting point than a theologian does "poof, god did it"

Can anyone suggest to Brian how this 'bringing my belief into the lab' might actually be done?

It seems to me that, for differing reasons, we're all saying it can't be done (or at least no-one is saying how it can be done which, in practice, amounts to the same thing).

I sense we might be at the end of this particular line of conversation, so I shall leave it there unless anyone does chip in with ideas of specific experiments.

---

Thank you for your kind words Little Lunch :-)

[Diablo]

So to recap, Brian said ...

You don't dare bring your belief into a lab because you know damn well you don't even have anymore a starting point than a theologian does "poof, god did it"

Can anyone suggest to Brian how this 'bringing my belief into the lab' might actually be done?

It seems to me that, for differing reasons, we're all saying it can't be done (or at least no-one is saying how it can be done which, in practice, amounts to the same thing).

I sense we might be at the end of this particular line of conversation, so I shall leave it there unless anyone does chip in with ideas of specific experiments.

The burden of proof lies with the person making that assertion. If your god exists then prove it. Whether you do it in the lab or not is your choice. Don't expect other people to devise tests for something that is your invention.

[Brian37]

So to recap, Brian said ...

You don't dare bring your belief into a lab because you know damn well you don't even have anymore a starting point than a theologian does "poof, god did it"

Can anyone suggest to Brian how this 'bringing my belief into the lab' might actually be done?

It seems to me that, for differing reasons, we're all saying it can't be done (or at least no-one is saying how it can be done which, in practice, amounts to the same thing).

I sense we might be at the end of this particular line of conversation, so I shall leave it there unless anyone does chip in with ideas of specific experiments.

---

Thank you for your kind words Little Lunch :-)

Please shred whatever degree you claim you have because you know damned well science does not work like that.

DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK.

[Tonus]

What experiment would you suggest I perform?

I know of no scientific experiment that can falsify the hypothesis "God exists".

I think that the reason for this is that theists have shoved god further and further into a metaphysical void in order to explain why he doesn't make his existence plain to everyone. We run into no shortage of reasons why god will not, cannot, and should not reveal himself plainly to humanity, with some form of "you can't obligate him, you lowly creature" as the ultimate fall-back position. None of those seem any more reasonable to me than "he isn't actually there."

[Cato]

Michael,

Thanks for the clarification regarding your diary comment. My reading may have been uncharitable, but it initially came across as 'Calvinists invented diaries'.

I just picked up A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. Is this your MacCulloch reference? Fodder for future discussion I hope. Pretty hefty and if true to the accolades won't be a quick read if I give it proper consideration.

I didn't mean to come across as championing the idea that Tyndale was executed for the language of his translation. As you have pointed out this is trivial considering the widespread translation work going on at the time. Tyndale's heresy was to have been the content of his translation and the impact it had on Church and Clerical authority (Luther's influence???).

I agree with your claim of the hypocrisy and inconsistency of 16th century church/state relations only insofar as it is compared with later liberal thought including the idea of church/state separation. Until I learn more, I don't see anything hypocritical considering events through the lens of the prevailing religious and political philosophy of the time. Saudi Arabia is a modern example. We find fault with executing people for what amounts to religious based thought crime, but people in 16th century England would not have thought it to be out of place.

[Michael]

Hello Cato

It's a great book. There's a fair amount of subtle humour in it as well. I look forward to discussing it. I must admit much of my knowledge comes from Diarmaid, so I'm likely to have absorbed his biases. I'd like to read Eaomon Duffy but he doesn't publish on Kindle and I have an internment eye problem so like the ability to have large fonts.

But his comments on diaries I mostly remembered from elsewhere. He mentions it in a good programme on Calvin. I'm not sure where you come from but here in the UK we have an excellent radio program called In Our Time which discusses almost anything. The contributors are always thoughtful and well-educated. Here is the one in Calvin that Diarmaid contributes to...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qvqpz

P.S. on hypocrisy, the main one is that I don't understand how anyone preaching the Gospel could burn anyone at the stake. It beggars belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems to me that, for differing reasons, we're all saying it can't be done (or at least no-one is saying how it can be done which, in practice, amounts to the same thing).

Meh, I said it could, and offered an example. Whether or not that example applies to you is irrelevant. Would you agree to it's use in a "thought experiment"?

I'm willing to work with you on figuring out how we might go about it, but it would probably be less stressful if we used something that you didn't believe. Whether or not our discussion would apply to the contents of your belief - and what that application might be - whatever those beliefs are in the first place, would be your own private matter.

[FreeTony]

Can anyone suggest to Brian how this 'bringing my belief into the lab' might actually be done?

Look up Simon Conway Morris. He is trying to do just that, funded by the Templeton Foundation.

He wants to show that evolution of human beings and intelligence was inevitable. Therefore God. See http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...evolution/

The only reason I came across this is that my partner nearly applied for a job on the project, but backed out once she realised it was funded in such an unorthodox way (Templeton). I actually also had a lecture course at University by Conway Morris. He was a very good and interesting lecturer and extremely bright. During this lecture course was the first time I heard of Creationism, when he explained that in America there would already be students objecting to his lecture.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wonder what sorts of flips he'll have to do to make that one follow?