Re: [asa] God disproven by science?

Bernie:

I'll try to be brief.

I agree with your initial assessment: there is a tension between
evidence and faith. Christianity is both a historical religion and one
that requires faith. Evidence supports faith, but it can never account
for faith. But I think that is true of realist science too.

The intercessory prayer issue and the like are founded upon certain
theories of what the world would be like if a certain kind of God
exists. How come we don't do that with electrons or quarks. We don't
say, for example, if "single" electrons form diffraction patterns, then
electrons cannot exist. No, instead we modify our conception of
electrons and even our view of the way the world is. Just because a
simplified theory of how God ought to operate fails empirical analysis
does not imply that God doesn't exist.

The question that we could all ask ourselves what evidence could be
marshalled to falsify the existence of God? Is the God thesis
falsifiable? What would it take to falsify the electron thesis? That's
a good question I think. Perhaps a hundred years ago it would have been
an easier question than it is today. The evidence mounts and we come to
rely in interrelated ways upon the hypothesis. Just that coherence
blinds us to what new evidence could overthrow the theory, or
reinterpret the evidence, now probably transformed.

Morrad keeps saying that God cannot be a subject of science. Perhaps it
is this unfalsifiable nature of His existence that is part of that. But
what can be falsified is certain God-laws (e.g., only the good will
prosper). If God cannot be bound to any predictable behavior, it would
be difficult to see how science or anyone could study Him by studying
the evidence.

Well, more could be said, but I promised to be brief.

bill

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009,
Dehler, Bernie wrote:

> At my next meeting an atheist (former Christian) will try to explain why the Christian God (not deism) can be disproved. His main argument is that if such a God really existed, we'd see the marks in real life, but there is no detectable supernatural intervention. For example, studies show that prayer has no effect on healing what-so-ever (any study to the contrary is scientifically flawed, he says).
>
>
>
> And short comments to that (no essays please)?
>
>
>
> The flip-side I see is that if there was scientific evidence for God, then it would no longer be a matter of faith. So there's no way you can have both faith and science, unless science is unable to test the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is that God answers prayer, the claim is that the statement can be scientifically proven false through studies.
>
>
>
> RE:
>
> http://www.meetup.com/sciligion/calendar/9503424/
>
>
>
> I suppose there's the argument for changed lives- by the power of God. But still- what about prayer for healing?
>
>
>
> RE:
> (James 5:15 ISV) And the prayer offered in faith will save the person who is sick. The Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 21 17:58:40 2009