The offended God theory

[jasong]

First, let me say I'm posting this to get input from the forum in general, Christians and non-Christians.

I don't have any links to refer to, if anyone could come up with some that would be great. Anyway, one theory why God is not observed in scientific tests is that he does not reveal himself to people who are offended by him. The suggestion is that the scientist doesn't want to believe in God, so God stays away and refuses to be involved in the test. Alternately, people who do believe in God are accused of being biased or unscientific when they get what they perceive are positive results.

I'm not making a statement one way or the other, but I would be very interested in any research that deals with this problem.

[ET_]

Originally Posted by jasong

First, let me say I'm posting this to get input from the forum in general, Christians and non-Christians.

I don't have any links to refer to, if anyone could come up with some that would be great. Anyway, one theory why God is not observed in scientific tests is that he does not reveal himself to people who are offended by him. The suggestion is that the scientist doesn't want to believe in God, so God stays away and refuses to be involved in the test. Alternately, people who do believe in God are accused of being biased or unscientific when they get what they perceive are positive results.

I'm not making a statement one way or the other, but I would be very interested in any research that deals with this problem.

If your reasoning were true, God would show the same feelings of humans...
But it is said that God is above human feelings, that His behaviour can not even be perceived by us, let it away judged.

If God exists (it's a matter of faith, not mere logic), He doesn't care less about judging or punishing humans, I think: in fact, if He showed His reaction as humans do, part of the sacred books would be in error, while if he didn't the other part of the sacred books would be mistified.

It is my opinion that such subject just cannot be approached logically.

Luigi

[davieddy]

God is as slippery as the arguments used by His defenders.

[S485122]

Some scientists are religious people, so their god could be observed by them in experiments without offending them. This line of reasoning is just no sound. I think that scientific tests cannot answer one way or another : the idea of a god or gods is just unscientific (not measurable, reproducible...) It is impossible to prove something exists or does not exist, if that something cannot be observed in any way, except in ones personal revelation.

[ewmayer]

The God of the Old Testament (shared by Jew, Christian and Moslem) certainly seemed to have no qualms to appearing in spectacular fashion to both believers and nonbelievers: burning bushes, cities destroyed, oceans parted, overly curious chicks turned into pillars of salt, etc. So what happened - did he/she/it just get bored with the interventions? Going from the above kinds of spectacles to random (alleged) appearances of Jesus/Mary/ThePope's (alleged) faces on various (alleged) food items and bits of (alleged) damp masonry - Bit of a comedown, wouldn't you say?

Also, still waiting to hear from the believers why God and Jesus have no problems miraculously curing all forms of illness except for ones lending themselves to easy direct verification - what do they have against believer-amputees? After all, these were folks who in biblical times allegedly had no problem bringing the week-old *dead* back to life - restoring a little ol' hand or eye should be a simple matter. Again, to those who believe the literal truth of the biblical accounts, I ask: what happened?

Occam's Razor sez: "The most parsimonious answer is that all the alleged miracles were just made-up fables, or real stories (e.g. Jericho destroyed by earthquake) given a religious interpretation, usually one quite friendly to the people represented by the authors of the scripture in question."

Do you think it's a coincidence that the Hebrew Bible has a rather pronounced pro-Hebrew bias? That the New Testament tends to be just slightly pro-Christian? That the Q'uran is just a wee bit on the "Up with Moslems" side of the moral ledger?

These days, we call that sort of stuff "mythmaking, fabulism and propaganda" (MFP). It may be beautifully written MFP, it may be based to some degree on actual and quite interesting historical events, many parts of it may be in service of a genuinely useful system of morality and ethics, but it is MFP nonetheless.

[ET_]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

These days, we call that sort of stuff "mythmaking, fabulism and propaganda" (MFP). It may be beautifully written MFP, it may be based to some degree on actual and quite interesting historical events, many parts of it may be in service of a genuinely useful system of morality and ethics, but it is MFP nonetheless.

Can you absolutely demonstrate the truth of your sentence, or only demonstrate the falsity of each and every bit of MFP?

In other words, can you give a definitive argumentation (non a probabilistic one) that you are right?

I guess that here lies the problem: altough logic can't accept miracles, you can't say miracles don't exist because they are not logic. Our history is full of (apparent) paradoxes, that have been explained years later.

There is a strange ring here: if you use logic, you can't talk about miracles, because logic doesn't apply to illogical matter. Try to logically explain a joke, and the fun vanishes away...

BTW, I'm agnostic.

Luigi

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Also, still waiting to hear from the believers why God and Jesus have no problems miraculously curing all forms of illness except for ones lending themselves to easy direct verification - what do they have against believer-amputees? After all, these were folks who in biblical times allegedly had no problem bringing the week-old *dead* back to life - restoring a little ol' hand or eye should be a simple matter. Again, to those who believe the literal truth of the biblical accounts, I ask: what happened?

I'm not a theologian, but I do believe in God and am a Christian. Just wanted to let that be known before I continue my post.

Personally, I think the amputee thing is because it's easier for people to believe that God can cure their non-visible illnesses than an amputation. Also, the Bible covers a very large time frame, while a lifetime is an insignificant amount of time compared to that, so if. (~4000 B.C. to ~35 A.D., ~4035 years, compared to the US average of 77.9 years, or about 52 times the average lifetime)
We haven't had miracle makers or heard of week-old dead people coming to life in either of our lifetimes, but why does that mean it hasn't happened before or won't happen again?

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by jasong

Anyway, one theory why God is not observed in scientific tests is that he does not reveal himself to people who are offended by him.

Pastafarians go beyond this. They say that his noodliness directly interfers with all relevant scientific tests. He does this for his own amusement.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by jasong

Anyway, one theory why God is not observed in scientific tests is that he does not reveal himself to people who are offended by him.

... which is fairly obviously, to an objective observer familiar with human nature, an excuse cooked up by a human mind to avoid admitting that God has no existence other than as an idea.

The suggestion is that the scientist doesn't want to believe in God, so God stays away and refuses to be involved in the test.

... and the dog ate my homework ...

Alternately, people who do believe in God are accused of being biased or unscientific when they get what they perceive are positive results.

Were their perceived positive results obtained in a scientific way that avoids self-deception and other biases? Have they completely described the experiment or observation by which they obtained their perceived positive results? Are their perceived positive results reproducibly obtainable by others? Have their reports of perceived positive results been subjected to examination and critique by other scientists, with no one able to point out any flaws in their methodology or interpretations? Any "no" answer to those and several other questions disqualifies the study/experiment/observation from being authentically scientific and unbiased.

I'm not making a statement one way or the other, but I would be very interested in any research that deals with this problem.

Scientific methods are designed to avoid self-deception (and other-deception), which is a powerful and pervasive phenomenon in human life. It takes many forms, many of which were not recognized until relatively recently (since the invention of the science of psychology, for instance).

I've never seen a claim of God's existence (other than as an idea in the human mind) that relied on observations obtained by a method that eliminated the possibilities of self-deception.

[Zeta-Flux]

jasong,

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are basically asking whether or not God will let His prophets/messengers be scrutinized by scientists so they can test whether these servants really have the ability to heal others, walk on water, and call down fire. Is this right?

--------------

ewmayer,

You ask: "Also, still waiting to hear from the believers why God and Jesus have no problems miraculously curing all forms of illness except for ones lending themselves to easy direct verification - what do they have against believer-amputees?"

I respond: This is a false dichotomy. First, many Christians believe He does heal such wounds (such as myself). Second, some other wounds/illnesses would count as lending themselves to easy direct verification (such as being blind from birth).

That said, I don't personally believe one should base one's faith on miracles. They can ultimately be faked, there are false prophets/charlatans, one can be fooled, and so forth.

--------------

Mini-geek,

Why wouldn't God heal people nowadays? Why wouldn't He have prophets, and apostles, and the gifts of the Spirit?

-------------

cheesehead,

You ask: "Were their perceived positive results obtained in a scientific way that avoids self-deception and other biases? Have they completely described the experiment or observation by which they obtained their perceived positive results? Are their perceived positive results reproducibly obtainable by others? Have their reports of perceived positive results been subjected to examination and critique by other scientists, with no one able to point out any flaws in their methodology or interpretations? Any "no" answer to those and several other questions disqualifies the study/experiment/observation from being authentically scientific and unbiased."

I respond: Those are good questions. One should, of course, bear in mind that there are many human endeavors which are not open to scientific inquiry but nevertheless are worthwhile to pursue/believe. Yet I heartily believe that one should attempt to be open to new light which science can shed on a subject.

Best,
Zeta-Flux

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

One should, of course, bear in mind that there are many human endeavors which are not open to scientific inquiry

(A) The OP specifically referred to "scientific tests", so is specifically about human endeavors that are open to scientific inquiry.

(B) I presume that by "human endeavors which are not open to scientific inquiry", you mean "human endeavors to which scientific inquiry is not theoretically possible to be applied", rather than simply a denial of permission to conduct scientific inquiry.

I disagree that there is any human endeavor to which scientific inquiry is inapplicable, if that's what you mean. Can you cite an example of one?

If I mistake your meaning (e.g., if you meant that current technology does not provide means by which scientific inquiry can be conducted), will you cite a specific example to clarify it?