3 ms·

I agree that there are claims (normative, aesthetic, etc.) that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. But most religious people would claim that 1) a god exis

I agree that there are claims (normative, aesthetic, etc.) that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. But most religious people would claim that 1) a god exists and 2) that god has observable effects on the material world. If claim 2 is true we should be able to use the usual tools to know it. If claim 1 is true but claim 2 is false, that is practically indistinguishable from a situation where God does not exist at all.

CharlesColeman 7y ago
> If claim 2 is true we should be able to use the usual tools to know it. Not necessarily. The "usual tools" presume objects that react minimally to observation, and they tend to loose potency when the objects being studied are aware of observation and especially of its intent. You see reactions to this fact in psychological research, which often has to mislead experimental participants to get them to react less unnaturally, for instance. If God exists, He knows of your tests and may choose to have you point your "usual tools" somewhere else when He's "having an observable effect."
catawbasam 7y ago
Re claim 2, I claim that it has an effect on my experience: Though I was at one time an atheist, I experienced what I can only describe as the presence of God or the divine spirit. I am far from the only witness. Does this count as an observable effect on the material world? I am certainly a material being living in the physical universe, but you could not detect that experience with a telescope. Maybe with an MRI? Dunno. Of course you can claim the experience was probably a delusion. But you'll never convince me of that.
- dabbledash 7y ago
  I definitely count that as an observable effect on the material world. There’s not enough information for me to know what caused it, but yeah I think it’s a totally normal datapoint. I’m not arguing about the existence of God per se, I’m saying that I find the idea that claims about God are totally different than other kinds of claims unconvincing.

CharlesColeman 7y ago

> If claim 2 is true we should be able to use the usual tools to know it. Not necessarily. The "usual tools" presume objects that react minimally to observation, and they tend to loose potency when the objects being studied are aware of observation and especially of its intent. You see reactions to this fact in psychological research, which often has to mislead experimental participants to get them to react less unnaturally, for instance. If God exists, He knows of your tests and may choose to have you point your "usual tools" somewhere else when He's "having an observable effect."

catawbasam 7y ago

Re claim 2, I claim that it has an effect on my experience: Though I was at one time an atheist, I experienced what I can only describe as the presence of God or the divine spirit. I am far from the only witness. Does this count as an observable effect on the material world? I am certainly a material being living in the physical universe, but you could not detect that experience with a telescope. Maybe with an MRI? Dunno. Of course you can claim the experience was probably a delusion. But you'll never convince me of that.

dabbledash 7y ago
I definitely count that as an observable effect on the material world. There’s not enough information for me to know what caused it, but yeah I think it’s a totally normal datapoint. I’m not arguing about the existence of God per se, I’m saying that I find the idea that claims about God are totally different than other kinds of claims unconvincing.