Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell

[Anti War]

But what if there are Hells from other religions (Greek Gods, Islam, Hindu)? And that God may be very upset with you for believing the Christian God?

[jimwalton]

We have to figure it out. We have to research and think and discern what's true. We have to weigh evidences, look at history, examine people's experiences, read the sacred texts, and decide what's true. This is not a matter of blind religious belief but about what's real and what's true.

[Swine]

> ...Say what? That's not how it works.
​
How do you know how it does or doesn't work, unless you have some means of objectively investigating it? This is why scientific investigation has **not** concluded that aliens exist and are abducting people.
​
> Let me give you a real life example...
​
So, you are providing an anecdote regarding something which happened, and then ascribing a cause to it which you have no objective evidence for. The cause you are ascribing to it has monumental ramifications. Do you understand that that sort of reasoning is the same that resulted in witch burnings and the like? This is exactly why scientific inquiry is superior to superstition. Scientific inquiry doesn't say things about that which can't be objectively investigated, and that is valuable specifically because coming to conclusions about that which can't be objectively investigated is dangerous! Your example might be a harmless one, but the essence of what you are doing, the structure of your reasoning, is not reliable, and is dangerous. You might have come to a happy positive conclusion as a result of your speculation about the cause of what you observed, but if we as a society deem that as an acceptable form of reason, we are allowing basically anything to be accepted as reasonable, even terrible and wrong conclusions resulting in harm.
​
We can certainly say we don't have the answer to most questions, but it is unwise to claim certainty about that which we are not certain. If justification for certainty can't reasonably demonstrated, should we really be certain?
​
I'll humor you and provide a way one might scientifically study prayer:
Let's pick a hospital, where nobody at the hospital is aware of the experiment. Let's also pick a church of prayer warriors willing to participate. Let's randomly select 50% of the patients from each area of the hospital, 50% of the terminally ill, 50% of the the patients with common colds, etc. Now let's provide profiles of each of the 50% of patients to our prayer warriors to pray over them. They won't know that it is only 50% of the patients of the hospital. What do you think the rate of healing will be for the ones prayed for vs the ones not prayed for?
Or is that not how prayer is supposed to work? If not, then enlighten me.

[jimwalton]

> How do you know how it does or doesn't work, unless you have some means of objectively investigating it?

What I have showed you is that there is no means of objectively investigating claims of miracles because someone can ALWAYS claim a different explanation—always. I had hoped that I was clear. And this has nothing to do with science explaining alien abductions. Please, let's keep the discussion focused and rational. It's sort of like wanting scientific evidence that the colonists threw tea into the Boston Harbor in 1773. It's just not a matter for scientific inquiry. We can only know by the authenticity of the records we have and whether or not we attribute reliability to those documents. There are no photos and no science, only written claims.

As I was saying, suppose I were a miracle worker (I'm not), and you were standing in front of me. Suppose you challenged me to make it rain milk, and suppose I did. You, if you were a skeptic, would find or create some other explanation for it rather than that I did a miracle. And I'm sure you could come up with something, whether some kind of phenomenon or even a hallucination. Anyone who wants to deride miracles can.

We can only know how God does or does not work through miraculous events by what is revealed to us in the Bible. That's how we figure out God's methods and means. If we come to accept theism based on the logic and evidences of His existence, and if we come to accept the Bible as truth based on the logic and evidences of reliability, then we come to an acceptance of what it says about miracles. There's nothing about miracles that is inimical to science or excluded by science. It depends on one's worldview coming from other vantage points as to whether or not one accepts them.

> Do you understand that that sort of reasoning is the same that resulted in witch burnings and the like?

Oh, it's not the same at all.

> This is exactly why scientific inquiry is superior to superstition.

Of course it is. No debate there. But scientific inquiry doesn't reach into every field. Today begins the confirmation hearings for potential justice Brett Kavanaugh. If I challenged you to use only science to determine his suitability—well, that's absurd. This isn't an arena for science, but rather for a whole different kind of evidence and reasoning.

> but it is unwise to claim certainty about that which we are not certain. If justification for certainty can't reasonably demonstrated, should we really be certain?

But what if one is certain, even in the dearth of "scientific evidence"? Not everything is in the path of objective scientific investigation, as I mentioned: The confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, or who's going to win the Eagles/Falcons game this Thursday.

> I'll humor you and provide a way one might scientifically study prayer:

Your case doesn't even get close to a scientific study.

1. We have to be able to isolate all the events on earth that are actions of God and those that aren't. It would have to be able to be proven that prayer was the only element at work. If we can't create clean categories here (knowing exactly what is of God and what is not), the data may be tainted.

2. When the prayers are being said, we have to be able to guarantee that only the certain people we assign (and none others anywhere else in the world) are praying in a certain way for a certain outcome. Any stray prayers unknown to the researchers may skew the data. In addition, we would have to know that absolutely no one in the world was praying for those in the control group (because we have to have a control group). One pray-er, again, may skew the data. If we can’t guarantee exactly who’s praying anywhere in the world and what they are praying with absolute certainty, then the data may be invalidated.

3. We have to establish objective criteria for what constitutes an answer to prayer and what doesn’t. After all, in the Bible God at times uses very normal people and normal circumstances to answer prayer. If we can't define clearly what constitutes an answer to prayer, then the data is invalid. Also, sometimes God answers prayer not in the ways people prayed, but in other ways to answer their prayer by arriving at a different end by a different means, but still what they prayed for. We'd have to be able to define all of that. And sometimes God answers prayer partially. Sometimes He answers prayer in stages. If we are really going to be certain about the purity of your experiment, we have to be able to define that.

4. Then we must be able to construct a model or standard by which we can objectively identify what answers to prayer can scientifically be verified, and what we can reasonably expect as a line of demarcation between legitimate answers to prayer and contrived answers to prayer (what would have happened "naturally"). Construction of such a standard is impossible, and therefore you cannot legitimately claim answers to prayer are not legitimate answers. You don’t know.

5. Experimentation is contingent on an ironclad control group. If other factors can come into play in my experiment that I have neither accounted for nor can control, my experiment is lost. Suppose I'm trying to measure descent from a certain height from a parachute. It’s a senseless experiment, because I can never control the wind factor or the parachutist’s every move. The wind, along with atmospheric conditions such as temperature and barometric pressure, will vary my result every time. Now, it’s different dropping metal balls from a high balcony to measure gravity. The wind effect is negligible enough to be a non-factor. But a parachute from the sky is not subject to enough controls, though it’s still measurable and discernible.
So also prayer is not confinable to controls that give me a plausible baseline. There are too many factors, some of which can never be known, so that I cannot effectively isolate a control situation with reliability. In other words, my independent variable is not able to be isolated enough for the experiment to be valid. And even though the results may be objectively discernible and reasonably concluded, it is not subject to experimentation.I can never be sure of the baseline, and therefore can never be legitimately certain of the result. No one knows where the line really is because there isn't even a line to measure.

Therefore, since there is no way to know all of what anyone anywhere is praying, and there is no way to identify with scientific certainty which events (or parts of events) are acts of God and which are not, one cannot legitimately scientifically study prayer with the same kind of objectivity you can measure falling metal balls. The experiment fails on so many levels.

[Anti War]

How do you propose to figure it out? Take for instance just two of the Hell teaching religions: Christianity and Islam.

How do you figure out which is true?

[jimwalton]

You use the same kind of tests for truth that you do for anything else: Correspondence to reality, logical, internally consistent, a fit explanation of life and what we see around us, an accurate analysis of the human condition, which makes the most sense of abstract entities, which leads us to the greatest expression of human character and virtues, which is the most moral, which communicates reliable history, which is the most consistent with rational experience, which makes the most sense of conscience, beauty, morality and purpose, and which gives a worldview most consistent with reality. In other words, you use every part of your brain, logic, reasoning power, evidence, and experience.

[Swine]

Ok, I'm beginning to see the problem. Your description of science, if true, would cause all of what is currently science to no longer be science. In my example, it's definitely over simplified, but the concept is there. My simple study could inform us about the power of prayer. It wouldn't tell us why prayer has power, and it wouldn't say anything about the existence of God or anything supernatural, and it wouldn't tell us that prayer is absolutely the cause, but it would indicate that prayer has an objective effect. Scientific discovery does not tell us metaphysical absolute truths. It tells us what seems to be the case. It tells us that something is probably or probably not the case.

You list some places where science can't tell us anything. How can we know things via means other than science? My criticism is about how you come to conclusions, not what your conclusions are.

[jimwalton]

> Your description of science, if true, would cause all of what is currently science to no longer be science.

Be careful not to create a straw man just to negate what I am saying, or the reductionistic argument to try to reduce my point to, "Well, he just doesn't even know what science is!"

> it's definitely over simplified, but the concept is there.

Science cannot begin to isolate the factors needed to conduct a reliable experiment. If you can't control enough of the factors to get reliable data, or if you can't keep the independent and dependent variables pure enough, the experiment fails.

> My simple study could inform us about the power of prayer.

Even this, beyond all the science (as in my previous post) isn't adequate for the subject at hand. "Can I rightfully expect that God will actively and obviously answer my prayers at a rate greater than average?" It's an intriguing proposition. The answer should be "Of course." Practically speaking, if God were to answer the prayers of his people at a higher rate than average, I would form certain (no doubt self-oriented and self-centered) expectations about how I can, more often than not, get what I want. It's an insidious attitude, but impossible to avoid. Yes, look at me—I can turn the hand of God. The motives of every pray-er would come under question, because the idea of "control" will even subconsciously be lurking. Ultimately, the such a policy will devastate the purity of the human heart. Prayer was not given to people to make them master over God.

But what if my prayers are the kiss of death? If I pray for it, there is a lesser chance it will happen. What kind of tragic relationship with God is THAT?

Is there a 3rd Choice, where where it all seems haphazard, non-sensical, unpredictable, and sometimes just downright irrational? Our choices are actually narrow: God will be accused of ruining godly hearts because he has an OBLIGATION to answer prayers for them at a higher rate, and we all know about the corrupting leverage of power; God will be accused of cruelty as he deliberately ignores the cries of his people when he has asked them to pray to him, or God will be accused of cavalier apathy because he’s not responsive in any detectable way. Hmm.

Maybe there’s yet another choice. Let's talk about the reality of prayer. I talk to God, most of the time, not to get stuff out of him, but because I want to talk to him. I love him, and I want a relationship with him. So I talk. Just as I talk to my spouse, I am invited to talk to God about anything. It's my relationship, not a wish list. He's not Santa Claus, but my God.

But in your experiment, you want guaranteed results because someone prayed. What if, in your hypothetic situation, God doesn't want that patient healed for reasons unknown to us. Does it prove prayer doesn't work? God is not our employee. Again, this science experiment doesn't work on SO many levels, not just because my description of science would cause all of what is currently science to no longer be science. There's just so much more to the whole issue of prayer. Science just doesn't cut it to indicate whether or not prayer has an objective effect.

> How can we know things via means other than science?

A jury decides a person's guilt or innocence with the help of science, but that's not how they know whether a person is guilty or innocent. Economics is a science, but not really. Global and national financial matters are more subject to the Butterfly Effect and the unpredictable decisions of people than to "science." Many times science can't confirm history. History is interpretation of data. Science can't tell me the quality of Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Only a critical ear and a trained musician can do that. Science can't tell me whether Vincent VanGogh's self-portrait is a more accurate portrayal of him than a photograph. Science can't tell you whether or not I have forgiven my wife for, well, you know what. There are so many ways to know things that aren't science. Philosophy. Jurisprudence.

The arena for science is the natural world, not everything else. Science is a particular type of knowledge. Science is physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, geology, zoology, botany, genetics, physiology, the history of nature, and so on. Science is not Social Science, Sociology, Economics, Management Sciences, History, Animal Science, Anthropology, Food Science, Behavioral Sciences, Decisions Sciences, Family and Consumer Science, Politics, Music, Literature, Darwinism (as an explanation about natural history) and Computer Science. Practically none of these are science in the sense of the study of the natural world. They are really technologies or professional studies. I am not interested in limiting the ways to know things to what is called "scientific." My mind is far more open than that.

Philosophers of Science go way further than I would, claiming...

Thomas Kuhn: "[There is] no standard [in science] higher than the consent of the relevant community," a conclusion that has been colorfully characterized as scientific mob rule.

Paul Feverabend: "There is no scientific method. Science is, and should be, anarchic."

Some sociological studies have claimed that scientific knowledge is no more certain than any other type of knowledge. We are possibly the first generation in history that has dared to assert that natural science is the only knowledge and that physicalism is the only reality. I don't buy it. I'm not that closed-minded.

[Anti War]

> In other words, you use every part of your brain, logic, reasoning power, evidence, and experience.

Right, and so Christianity fails if you do this.

If Christianity is right, and there is a benevolent all mighty being that loves humans and promised to anwer prayers, then you would expect amputees to regrow limbs or Down's syndrome babies to be healed and become non-Down's syndrome. Everypart of my brain, logic, reasoning power, evidence and experience tells me amputees don't regrow limbs, Down's syndrome is a permanent condition.

Conclusion - an almighty benevolent being does not exist. Either he is not benevolent or not all powerful.

[jimwalton]

> Right, and so Christianity fails if you do this.

This is quite a brash conclusion, and without both foundation and evidence.

> If Christianity is right, and there is a benevolent all mighty being that loves humans and promised to anwer prayers, then you would expect amputees to regrow limbs or Down's syndrome babies to be healed and become non-Down's syndrome. Everypart of my brain, logic, reasoning power, evidence and experience tells me amputees don't regrow limbs, Down's syndrome is a permanent condition.

These conditions are most assuredly not the criteria for determining the truth of Christianity. The discussions over these topics, and about 50 others, have been being had for millennia, and books have been written on the subjects.

The way I read it, you have arbitrarily assigned two subjects that are of concern and confusion to you, postulated those as the sole criteria for the truth of Christianity, failed to study the relevant material on the subject, but have quickly and easily concluded that an almighty benevolent being does not exist.

Then you claim that either he is not all-good or not all-powerful, a claim that is tiresome it is so old and has been dealt with many times through history both philosophically and theologically.

In other words, I have yet to be convinced you are using every part of your brain, logic, reasoning power, evidence, and experience to arrive at your conclusion. It seems, by other measures, to be a conclusion from shallow research and lack of thorough reasoning, though I would be glad to give you an opportunity to show it to me differently and more thoroughly. You are far from proving that Christianity fails.