Does god fall into an empirically definable domain?

Question

Our scientific means for testing hypotheses require limited (within space and time) test subjects. Does god (as generally conceived of, whether you believe the concept is true or not) fit into this limited domain?

If so, what mode of enquiry would you use to provide evidence for god? Think this through, because whatever test you choose must provide evidence that cannot (logically) be explained in any other way.

If not, is it reasonable to ask for evidence on which to base your belief (positive or negative)? In other words, is scientific Atheism a rational position?

Note: I consider myself a scientific Atheist, and this is the question I am struggling with.

Someone had to bring up faith, when it was purposefully omitted from the question. Faith flew planes into buildings. Until the "faithfull' can intelligently address that charge, no faith is any better than any other.

Answer 1

This is a fascinating question, and I give it my best question award. Oh, hang on…I’ve got that wrong haven’t I? (little joke).I’ve thought about it for a long time. Some people, including many atheists say that no God exists and that there is no evidence for Him. But what about if you ask them this question? What kind of event, or situation would have to happen in order to provide the evidence you require? In other words, to make you a believer, what would you need to see or experience?

For the philosophically inclined, it is interesting to observe their answers. In most cases, one learns that NO conceivable event would make them believe in the supernatural. For example, if someone came and healed the sick and walked on water, they would say he was a magician. If a voice came out of a fiery cloud commanding them to obey the Lord, they would say it was the CIA with loudspeakers in drones etc etc… But we are, let’s face it, all a bit like that. And that’s good. Otherwise we would all be like those gullible suckers who just believe in anything and everything that is put up if front of them.

For myself, I would be very impressed if having a certain belief gave you special powers not available to others, such as power of flight, superhuman strength, ability to read minds, control fire, water, go back and forward in time etc. In this scenario, the link between “belief” and “power” is important, because it appears only in religious and supernatural literature that a person’s moral state can directly influence his environment. The powers of flight, telepathy and the others, by themselves, might always be explained as control of the physical universe by scientific means too advanced for us to understand. (Remember Carl Sagan’s saying “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”?) The difference between science fiction, which is overwhelmingly secular and materialistic, and fantasy, lies in this realm where particular characters and their morality are inextricably linked to the higher powers. Thus, for example, Lord of the Rings is a very different universe to the one in Star Trek. The former has a magical realm, the latter does not.

It is part of the religious world view that the universe is morally intelligible – that, objectively speaking,, “good” and “evil” exist in the same way as atoms and sandwiches. Science fiction would largely argue that the world of right and wrong is created by us, and that on a fundamental level, the universe has no particular meaning at all in and of itself.

So, if a Christian said to me “Look, before I became a believer, I was a flat-foot like you, but now look at this, and then took off and did a couple of circles around the block with a few loop de loops, I would begin to be impressed. If then, I found that when I began to believe, I was given powers that were otherwise inexplicable, and that became more powerful in correlation with the depth of my belief, then I would really consider that to be very impressive evidence for God and supernatural belief. Of course the die-hards would hold out even here, and offer all sorts of “scientific” alternative explanations, including hypnosis, alien powers, etc.

In actuality, this thought experiment is not so far from what Christians uphold: that Jesus changes their lives in ways that has allowed them to do things that they could never have done unaided, especially in such realms as overcoming addictions etc. Jung was particularly impressed with these phenomena: the Conversion Experience. 12 step programmes today asks sufferers to admit their own powerlessness over their addiction, and let their “higher power” take over. Whatever else, this approach has worked so well in practice, and for so long, that many overtly atheistic doctors go along with it, knowing that a patient seems to gain strength and serenity when they feel that some much greater and more benevolent Being is in their corner.

So, for Christians (and others) these kinds of successes on a personal level through belief systems provide direct evidence for God, although not evidence as impressive as the “believe and fly around the quad” scenario would. Don’t forget that this kind of scenario can have its downside too. The men in those planes that crashed into the WTC were all deeply religious. It is hard to imagine agnostics and atheists committing suicide like that.

Other kinds of phenomena are cited as scientific evidence for God, or at least some unexplained designer of the Universe. This includes the fact that all the parameters of the physical world are so perfectly aligned to create an environment that allows for life. The stars, for example, create the heavy elements in their centres, and then, in supernova explosions, release this material into interstellar space, thus sowing deep space with the basic materials necessary for chemistry and life. For many, this sounds like a good argument for Intelligent Design, for others, the randomness of the anthropic principle comes to their aid.

For the Christian or the spiritually inclined person though, I think that asking the non-believer what evidence would be required for them to admit that they had been witness to a supernatural event is a good way of getting the non-believer to see that they so structured their belief system, that no possible sequence of events would count, for them, as evidence for God or supernatural events. At least then you can say that IF, repeat IF, there was a God, then there would be no way that He or some witness could ever prove his existence to such an atheist. And that might give him pause to think.

Answer 2

No, I do not think that god can be defined empirically. Most of science is based on what can be percieved through either the five senses or through equipment that translates observations to these senses or to conceivable ideas. Although in this and the last century there has been a development to interpret inexplicable data in a scientific way (for instance the string theory), which would mean that even nonsensical data could be used in theorems proving things outside the conceivable plain.

On the other hand, there have been recordings of things not explainable by science-as-we-know-it, auras can be photographed, places where ghost appearances have been reported have shown a decrease in temperature, etcetera. These things can be recorded, but there are no theories in science that can explain them, which isn't saying either it can or cannot be proved in the future.

I myself like to entertain the idea that there is more to life than science can explain or will ever be able to explain. On the other hand, it doesn't give me the urge to believe in a god. I still like to wonder.

Answer 3

Good question.I like Sunmans answer but will submit more of the same. Time does not exist in reality. It's not about getting a new belief but letting all concepts go. Then enquire within yourself, who am I? A Warning. You have been taught by society and religion who you are, this I call the world dream. This is why you have rebelled against religion, good, but you still hang on to the scientific as taught in the world dream. Now the truth. You are truth without the need for beliefs. But you must know this for yourself. Thus the need to drop all beliefs and enquire within, who am I? The answer can only be found there. And that is as it should be, you do not have to depend on another. Do you see the perfection in this?

Answer 4

Unfortunately, you cannot limit God, neither within space nor time. I don't feel this will stop science, since it is really their own limitation in making the grounds for the mode of enquiry.

But don't give up the quest, keep searching for Him. I have full confidence that one day science will prove God exists. I just can't help you in how to form a method of enquiry ... sorry, I'm not that scientific :)

Answer 5

Possibly, but the test subject would have to be you, and you might only be able to prove it to yourself, but that's what really matters in any case.
The mode of inquiry would be just that; inquiring within. You must become a mental
physicist of sorts to explore that domain
where the reality of 'God' becomes apparent, not as it's commonly understood,
but as it appears within your own being.
Maybe then, from that perspective, you can
use your understanding of scientific terms
to articulate a description of that vast Identity you will inevitably run into.

Answer 6

No, faith comes by hearing ,and hearing by the word of God, know the truth and the truth will make you free.God cannot be proved with science, think about it. science is a closed loop system, it must prove itself true or it will eventually prove itself false.

Answer 7

Yes, Mr. Intelligent, ask yourself, why do I have opposable thumbs, or maybe it came from your ancestors, I mean, the slime that climbed up on shore and turned into a monkey which turned into you, Mr. Intelligent.

Answer 8

Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. I don't think God would fit if He is real.