@laureth
For the record, I understand the difference between scientific and non-scientific research. What I’m looking for is how to describe that “visions of God that appeared in my head and which are confirmed with Bible reading” are not the same kind of research as a double-blind, peer reviewed study to someone who thinks that both are equally reliable and valid.
…
my conversational companion would say that even if scientists conducted experiments and wrote the results down in books that I read, I am taking their findings on faith, so it’s just the same as reading the Bible. The nugget that I’m trying to pull out of everyone’s answers (and there are good ones) is an effective way to describe the difference between what I read in my books and what he reads in his Book.
I’m not sure why this is important. If you’re talking about god, the scientific approach to the question kind of falls apart. It really makes no difference whether or not science shows that there is a god, it can’t really show that there’s no god (well, not in the conceivable future). If, and it seems that this is the case, we are discussing the judeo-christian god, the issue is very different. But science really isn’t the way to go at it. What truth is this companion trying to pull from his readings and experiences (or hers, but I’m going to resort to he)? If it’s a truth that’s universally identifiable in most other faiths, sacred texts, etc., then it’s no more proof than any of those other texts. If it’s facts of how things happened (e.g., creation), then it’s reasonable to point to peer reviewed studies showing what we’ve discovered regarding the age of the universe, the earth, diversity in life, etc. But you should be willing to admit that there’s a lot unknown, and that the specifics are obviously under constant development. The problem with resort to the bible in any literal fashion is that it is a STATIC model, not subject to change, and therefore he must understand that he can’t point to it to counter your points regarding observable evidence. I would also ask what the person feels about the selection and cannonization of biblical books, how it’s changed over time (e.g., Mark was previously the least regarded among the first four New Testament books until it was discovered it was the oldest, and perhaps the only one written by someone who personally observed Christ), translation issues, transcription issues, and why the bible is a closed text (e.g., why are there no new revalations? What if we have ignored prophets (MLK seems like a good candidate)? Why are the Books of Mormon disregarded? etc.). I’m sure you’ve done some of this
But again, science doesn’t have anything to offer when we’re discussing god unless the person is generally approaching it from a specific religious perspective. General issues of “proof of god” are outside the purvey of science generally as they do not depend on any observable phenomenon, and can be used to explain all anyway.
@ETpro
The second God Model posits a God who does intervene in the day-to-day workings of the Universe. This model is testable and falsifiable, and it has failed every scientific test its been put to. The Universe follows the known laws of physics. If there were a supernatural being intervening routinely and bending these laws, we would be able to observe the deviations from natural law such interference would produce. We do not. So this model has been falsified. It, too, is not science.
I have to disagree. Considering the lack of a unified theory of physics, the size of the perceivable universe, our very, very recent development of the tools necessary to get a real concept of the issues working in the microcosmic and macrocosmic scales, there is no real support to say that this model has been falsified. Considering that, according to many, “God works in mysterious ways,” I don’t think that this model is any more falsifiable than the first model.