The Second Fundamental Theological Discrepancy of God's Omnipotence

With respect to the previous article I had posted, “God’s Self-Effacing Leadership of Humankind”, wherein I had attempted to reveal a fundamental theological paradox regarding Omni-morality, I now would like to take a step further from this. I would like to use that argument to the advantage of another, and this being the supposed omnipotence of God in terms of his obvious cruel acts on his creation.

The claim that God is all perfect, that he (pronoun use for the sake of convenience) must be omniscient, omnipotent, and at the same time omni-moral, seems to me collectively paradoxical.

As many scholars, scientists, and researchers have seen, Evolutionary Biology has made great advances regarding the explanation of speciation and biological evolution through natural mechanisms – that which are explained through mathematical modeling ( such as Game Theory) and by other fields seemingly non-related such as Neurology, Psychology, Biophysics etc. The majority of great scientists of the National Academy of Sciences have reason to believe that evolutionary theory is a much better, testable, observable, scientific theory than intelligent design. As such, laymen are obliged to take the position of acknowledging their scholarship in the relevant fields, and at least believe that evolutionary theory be true – based on the exponential growth of reports and research papers that all purportedly recognize Evolutionary theory’s potential for the biological sciences.

If we all believe Evolutionary Theory to be true – and most scientists and scholars do – than what this means is that complex life forms came about through natural mechanisms determined by the process of punctuated and graduated biological evolution. We must also therefore recognize that by biological evolution, we mean the ‘creation’ of species and their mass extinctions – and mass extinctions we do see, as displayed in the fossil record.

So it is interesting to contemplate the following: If God were omniscient, and knew that his creation of humankind by the initiation of biological evolution will result in mass extinctions (not to mention the resultant effect of 75% of all humans to be condemned to eternal destruction), could he not have simply created humankind through another method, since he is, after all, omnipotent? What leader, who knows the dire consequences of his plan he had designed but yet goes ahead and carries it out, expects that the sheer volume of victims who are being bounded by this plan still respect him as their leader? A God that condemns his creation to their detriment through his divine plan seems philosophically unsound, since God must necessarily be perfect in every conceivable way.

What “it was in his will to do so”? What “he must have plans laid out that which we humans cannot conceive of”? What Free Will? No matter these ad-hoc rebuttals, the fundamental discrepancy of omnipotence with regard to omni-morality and mass or/and eternal destruction still exists. The discrepancy lies before the creation of things, before the existence of something and nothingness, and before the non-existence of nothingness itself. God made a decision, if he exists, that is philosophically contrary to what theology expects of him. This is why a discrepancy exists.

Read more!

God's Self-effacing Leadership of Humankind

He who lets his people suffer and die just to fulfill ideals that are put as greater in priority over the life of his poeple is deeply immoral for he has forgotten his obligations as a leader of his people - to take their overall welfare and endure with what it takes to take best care of it. This, the unethical treatment of his people, is to be what God does - if God even exists.

What God that is so perfect in any conceivable way, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-capable, and ironically, all-good Lord, what be capable of commiting such an act against humankind, against his own people - whom he had created in his own image?

Today about three quarters of the world are non-Christian - that we assume to be about 75% for convenient sakes. This means that if the Christian God of the heavens of omni-perfection is the right God, this is the leader who condems 75% of his own beloved creation into eternal condemnation. Not only so, the Lord too murders 99% of his creation before the rising of man. What leader would murder so much of his poeple, and still deserve much praise and worship from those very people? This is a leader much worst than those who believe in killing witches, whose actions were much more mild than Hitler's and Stalin's, but when compared to God's, Hitler and Stalin is compared to be too mild to be compared. What grace, what honor!

This God I cannot honor, and this leader I cannot accept - if he even exists at all. As it may be said that even if I may be a blasphemer, but I have yet to see the angels of God disown me before humankind.

Read more!

The First-Cause Argument

Their argument:

For every effect there must be a cause. And that cause is in turn an effect, effected by a previous cause. This includes existence. Thus if we go further down this reasoning, there will be a first cause, and that is God!

The rebuttal:

Superficially, one must understand that if every effect has a cause, and a cause is itself an effect, then God must be an effect, of which there must be a cause. If God does not apply to the cause-effect reasoning, then esentially effects do not need causes! One cannot simply exempt something simply because it will suit their own beliefs.So why then do people still use the same old logically fallacious argument to prove the existence of God - such that God's existence is necessary? One argument goes that God exists outside of time, such that GOD HAS ALWAYS ETERNALLY EXISTED. Religion requires so since having faith is being certain about the evidence that one does not have (from Hebrew 11:1). Religious people do this because evolution is characterized by time, and that evolution is about cause-effect. So to leave God out of cause-effect, one must say that God exists out of time altogether. This is a strange rationalization because if God exists out of time (remembering 'omni-existence'), and that only time defines existence, then God, instead, certainly cannot exist if God exists out of time. Basically, such reasoning is logically fallacious and, as such, is wishful thinking.

Please view http://hs.facebook.com/, the discussion board of "The Out Campaign", the section called "Philosophical Rebuttals of (any) God" to see the actual post that was posted by me.

Read more!

The "God-of-the-Gaps" argument

Their argument:
Often when phenomenon cannot explained, such abnormalities are often associated with the divine intervention of a transcendent being (or beings?).

The Atheist Argument:
First, when patients of religious faith find out that their disease or injury had been healed quite unexpectedly, they assume that this is due to God. They believe that all things that all things that come from God are always good, and they therefore come to belief that their medically unexpected recovery was by God. However, a fundamental flaw is being committed here. These patients assume that doctors know all there is to all viruses and bacteria- meaning they assume that all possible knowledge about the effects of viral or bacterial infections has already been acquired. With this fallacious assumption, and when told by the doctor that the disease, injury or any other related has 'unexpectedly cured itself', patients then assume such a recovery is God's doing. The fact, however, is that scientists, let alone doctors, have not acquired all knowledge. Medical research is continuing on till this very day, current knowledge is being continuously re-validated, and newer research projects are being created every day. With the exponential growth in research projects, not many doctors have the time to review each report, let alone have all the knowledge that pertains to viral or bacterial infections. This reasoning also applies to natural phenomenon, wherein some aspects of the universe remain elusive, but this sense of unknowing is not due to the complete lack of natural evidence to proof and reveal the natural mechanisms that result in the phenomenon, but rather to ignorance – meaning that insufficient research has been occurring regarding the experimentation and observation of the phenomenon of interest. In other words, the “God-of-the-Gaps” argument is an argument from ignorance – a logical fallacy.

Read more!

Illumination of a Few Fundamental Flaws in the Arguments for Apparent Design

On the view that many popularly used arguments have been utilized to proof God’s existence, I shall here attempt to illuminate some of the inherently fallacious grounds to which proponents of a super-designer commit when arguing for their position. Although most of these criticisms of Intelligent Design already exist, much remains absent due to the media’s inability to cover all this controversy – as this will be politically detrimental.

On the first fundamental flaw Intelligent Design advocates commit, that being the fallacy of Faulty Analogy, I shall reveal first its argument then explain its flaws. From the view of those advocates, organisms or structures within organisms operate just like machines, having motors, pumps, tubes and memory drives etc. Since the analogy is made between biological systems to mechanical systems, advocates then duly conclude that the natural evolution of such complex systems remains inexplicable. Apparently, they typically consider this analogy with respect to the orderliness and mechanics of the universe. However, what has been failed to grasp is that the universe, including the organisms living within it, represents an economy – more so for biological evolution. While machines are rigid, only performing tasks rendered favorable in the eyes of its designer(s), individual systems in an economy perform tasks that are favorable to the survival of the self. An economy evolves, changes through fluctuations, and does so through the so-called ‘random’ causes within each independent system. Take the analogy used here, as in a financial economy. When people buy and sell shares in an economy, they do so by critical analysis and informed decisions. A whole economy thus perpetuates itself due to supply and demand, and in a more minuscule manner by the complex relations between seller and customer. Such an economy may seem to have been designed by a Supreme Being or privileged group, but the contrary is true. The structure of today’s economy evolved through the complex relationship of supply and demand, and was not invented by some privileged individual or group some decade ago. This also applies to biological evolution, wherein biological creatures are prone to change and shall gradually differentiate into newer species from varieties through their relationship with the natural conditions they live in and the complex relations between creatures. Therefore, the inherent problem with the comparison of biological systems to mechanical systems is that this analogy does not take into account the susceptibility of biological systems to mutate and change over time.

Following from the same faulty analogy initially alluded to is the inherently flawed argument from ignorance. The argument goes like this. Suppose I were to find a rock or fountain. I would come to believe that it formed naturally, without the aid of a designer. Then, suppose I saw a watch while walking in that same forest (one must pretend that I have not seen such an object before). I too would come to believe that the watch formed naturally. The problem here is that this argument is valid only under an uneducated eye. The fact is, we can explain the formation of rocks or fountains with natural laws, and describe them with natural mechanisms. The watch, on the other hand, requires a designer. Remember that whenever each change occurs in a biological system, or organism, that change must be advantageous to its current state of being, not to its ends. For example, if a fish, through evolutionary time, began to be able to take short periods above water, and develop more complex respiratory systems, these changes are to be of survival value in that current state of being. Moreover, it is. A watch however, cannot have a wheel, and then another, forming two wheels, if no selective advantage exists to have that second wheel. In fact, the main difference is that machines do not reproduce and mutate, or become altered, while organic forms or beings can do them effectively, though not efficiently, in their current organic states.

However, the most outrageous flaw that proponents of design advocate is that mutations are random, not induced. Contrary to the other relatively weaker arguments, this is a strong and daring claim that they profess. Nothing but the contrary is true. Numerous accounts could be given, such as RH Schiestl, F Khogali, and N Carls’ article “Reversion of the mouse pink-eyed unstable mutation induced by low doses of x-rays”1 and Hwang CB, Shillitoe EJ.’s “DNA sequence of mutations induced in cells by herpes simplex virus type-1”2. Wherein mutations are induced by radiation, uncorrected errors in cell duplication, epigenetically exchanged DNA etc., it seems hard for one to say that mutations occur randomly, rather than by predictable natural causes. I shall here only point to one example, to illustrate the point about the natural causes for genetic mutations. From the scholarly article authored by Frank Feuerbach, Christian Godon and seven other authors, named as “Transgene-Induced Gene Silencing in Plants”3, mutations of the genome of plants are induced by the transfer of genetic material between loci of the individual plant itself. Here these scholars describe how such a transmission is done, and about how silencing of various genes can result from such transfers. Biologists have many a time asserted that there is research to show that mutations are induced by nature or organic beings, and that they need not necessarily be done so through the invisible hand of God(s).

Such boldness proponents of Intelligent Design have to proclaim such outrageous arguments and claims and pretend that such fallacious viewpoints are actually a potential alternative to materialistic evolution – evolution with no God(s) involved. For such statements are not grounded under logic and contemporary scientific knowledge, one has to wonder how and why the society of this age can be so easily conned by such outright liars.


Footnotes

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/266/5190/1573
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2167549&dopt=Citation
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-313x.1998.00337.x

Bibliography

Shanks N. (2006). God, the Devil, and Darwin: a Critique of Intelligent Design Theory. New York: Oxford University Press

Read more!

On the Origin of Life – Almost Certainly not by Intelligent Design

The belief in an intelligent designer began centuries ago when humankind began to be the dominant species of the animal kingdom. From the time of the creation of religion to its gradual differentiation, and then towards the beginnings of scientific creationist world views, we now are witnessing a supposed alternative to materialist evolution – intelligent design. A theory currently in crisis, intelligent design cannot yet provide a good analysis about the origin of life. Not only is it incoherent at its current development, but it also appeals and necessitates many ad-hoc assumptions for the theory to be fully realized. It is to no wonder that the majority of contemporary scientists do not take it seriously.

Intelligent design can be defined by its belief in the creation of the universe by some ‘intelligence’, and followed by evolution thereafter. Yet, it is sometimes argued amongst the scientific community whether these creationists* accept evolution at all. Its proponents “…claim that they can empirically distinguish intelligent design from that produced through natural processes (such as natural selection)” (Scott, 2005, p. 117). The theories utilized, however, are questionable, for its incoherence is conspicuously illogical.

Two of the currently well-known theories proposed by supporters of intelligent design are irreducible complexity and the design filter. Proposed by Michael Behe, a biochemist, irreducible complexity explains that “…certain biological systems

[*Advocates of intelligent design often discern themselves from religion and past creationist theories, emphasizing that they are not creationists. (I shall argue its contrary in the later part of my argument.)]

are too complex to have arisen by chance mutation plus natural selection” (Frank, 2004, p. 111). This idea can be said to have arisen from the design filter theory, a concept developed by William A. Dembski, a mathematician and theologian. The design filter theory explains that “…design can be detected through the elimination of chance and law hypotheses…” (Peterson, 2002, p. 14). The problem with the design filter is that the conclusion drawn is characterized by a position of theoretical and scientific ignorance. If a system or structure seems currently unexplainable by natural means, this does not mean than an appeal to a designer is correct, for scientific inquiry will most likely yield better or more revolutionary explanations for seemingly irreducibly complex structures and systems in the future. When Behe proclaimed the flagellum and the immune system as irreducibly complex in his controversial book, Darwin’s Black Box, all he proved is his “… [inability] to provide an empirically adequate account of transitional forms that could explain these structures” (Peterson, 2002, p. 15). In fact, much recent research 1,2,3 on the flagellum has shown that the flagellum can, indeed, evolve through natural selection and chance mutation. The theory of irreducible complexity was, according to advocates of intelligent design, supposed to revolutionize biology. Yet all it has done is create resistance towards the possibility of intelligent design, as well as the usability of the design filter.

The logical flaws and fallacies committed by proponents of intelligent design and its theory reduce the theory’s quality of being able to explain the origin of life.

The first problem, when arguing for intelligent design, is that “…signs of physical order in the universe are [recognized as] evidence of design by purposeful mentation” (Frank, 2004, p. 112). As discussed by Frank, an argument from asserted order is invalid. He explains that if order were a form of evidence for design, then we must be able to use this hypothesis and examine other universes, to see if orderliness is a common aspect. Obviously, however, we do not yet have the privilege of examining universes other than our own (if they exist at all). Could disorderliness also not be a sign of design? Works of art created by artists such as Picasso have a tendency to be disorderly, i.e. images depicted in those artworks do not necessarily conform to the appearance of objects in reality. Therefore, “…to assert that physical order is necessarily a design principle of the universe merely begs the question” (Frank, 2004, p.112).

Other issues that follow are “…circularity in the argument from order” (Frank, 2004, p. 114). The first issue is the analogy of orderliness in the universe to the orderliness of a human artifact. As Frank discusses, the nature of the argument is such that a microscopic version of orderliness “… [reproducing] orderly and periodic motions…” (Frank, 2004, p. 114) – such as a clock – represents macroscopic orderliness and complexity in the universe, thus necessitating the presence of a designer. However, one must understand that the artifact was itself manufactured by someone who used his/her understanding of the orderliness of the universe to create orderly artifacts. “Therefore, to recruit the physical order and mechanism in nature to support a conclusion of purposeful design in nature by analogy to human purposeful design inheres an invalidating circularity” (Frank, 2004, p. 114). Likewise, when Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity is examined, with respect to his comparison of a flagellum to a car – having a motor, gears and other parts similar to a mechanical system – the theory is found to be circular.

The other circular problem has to do with verifiable certainty. That is, briefly described, that one can verify his/her certainty of whether an artifact is purposefully designed by some individual. As Frank has revealed, the constants and orderliness of the universe lack verifiable certainty, and thus design can only be inferred. Therefore, looking back at Behe’s famous analogy of a mousetrap to the flagellum, one understands that there is verifiable certainty of design for the mousetrap, but no obvious certainty for the flagellum, or any other illusionary irreducibly complex structure.

The other circular issue is that of developmental intelligence. Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, examines the idea that if intelligence is understood to be evolutionary in nature, did the intelligence of the designer also evolve, or did it always exist? This, then, begs two questions: what kinds of principles and laws are the designer restricted to in order to evolve and to have such intelligence to design the universe? Can we measure the designer’s intelligence quantitatively? If the designer exists outside the natural world, then this designer is as good as not existent, for if this designer were supernatural, then intelligent design ultimately does not explain what is most important to its theory – the designer.

The next logical flaw of intelligent design is its proponents’ resistance to methodological naturalism, as “…opposition to methodological naturalism is central to [Intelligent Design] rhetoric” (Peterson, 2002, p. 9). Since science is about systematically searching for greater understanding about the universe, with respect to the collection of empirical data, science must not limit itself to being “…a form of implicit atheism… [and prohibit] reference to God or other supernatural entities in any scientific explanation” (Peterson, 2002, p. 9). Yet, as discussed earlier on, it will be further emphasized that the question of a designer’s presence is questionable and incoherent in terms of contemporary argument. If not methodological naturalism, shall it be methodological supernaturalism? Acquiring knowledge and advice from priests and other religious authorities is questionable in itself for the source of the information cannot be verified as the messages come from a supernatural source that cannot be identified by naturalistic means. In addition, this knowledge, meaning justifiable propositions, from religious authorities is not knowledge at all, but myth.

The last erroneous argument in favor of intelligent design, with regard to an explanation of the origin of life, is “[t]he argument for physical improbability” (Frank, 2004, p. 122). This argument explains that the physical constants of our universe is so finely tuned that any alteration to any of these values will cause the entire universe to cease to exist. Yet, one has to wonder if only this set of values can exist, and that all other varying sets of physical constants are non-existent, or at least improbable. Although a continuing controversy exists in the field of physics, many physicists (such as Einstein) seek a ‘theory of everything’, to explain cosmological evolution by naturalistic means, and to explain all natural phenomenon in a more encompassing theory that combines two incompatible theories: Newton’s law of gravity and Einstein’s theory of relativity. Currently, however, none of these theories are fully developed. Frank explains it this way: “[a]n argument from unexplained physical constants is thus indistinguishable from ‘wishful thinking,’ and rather represents yet one more fall back position in the continual retreat of rational faith…” (Frank, 2004, p. 122).

If advocates of intelligent design wish to be taken seriously by the majority of the scientific community, they must establish research programs. If this were a scientific hypothesis, then therefore this science must be “…characterized by …research programs” (Peterson, 2002, p. 11). According to Krauss, however, (a physicist and author at Case Western Reserve),

“…proponents of intelligent design have not engaged in the traditional process of scientific publishing. In a survey of 10 million articles in 20 major science journals over the past dozen years … a colleague of [mine] found 115,000 articles with "evolution" as a keyword. Of those, "intelligent design" was mentioned in 88. All but 11 of those mentions were in articles about engineering rather than biology … Of the remaining 11, eight were critical of intelligent design and three referred to conference proceedings rather than peer-reviewed journal articles.” 4

In this context, Peterson would most likely consider their research programs for intelligent design as degenerative, having neither “…hypotheses repeatedly confirmed, [discover] unexpected novel facts… explain… phenomena accounted by competitor theories, [nor]… [explain] phenomena that competing theories cannot explain” (Peterson, 2002, p. 11).

In order for intelligent design to realize its full potential for revolutionizing scientific inquiry, it necessitates a designer – most likely a religious one. Intelligent design must explain the nature of the designer, for this is crucial to the whole theory of intelligent design. However, since “[i]ntelligent design theorists… consistently [resist] reasoned speculations on the nature of the designer, claiming that this lies beyond the scope of [intelligent design theorists] as a science” (Peterson, 2002, p. 17), then only religion can account for the nature of this supposed designer. Though these theorists assert their independence from religion, intelligent design seems more like a plan to bring God back into science. (Peterson 2002) Yet, it is widely known among public intellectuals (such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) that religion is irrational at its most fundamental level.

One of the biggest criticisms against religion is its constant usage of ad-hoc hypotheses, claiming that these hypotheses are facts without a doubt. The rationality of religious beliefs (such as the supposedly positive effects of intercessory prayer on physical health5 and religion’s effect on societal health6) shall not be considered here, for it is commonly understood as irrational at its core. Instead, I shall consider the rather philosophical, yet somewhat scientific, argument that attempts to combine theology and science.

The argument that “[l]aw as the relation between God and created reality” (Zylstra, 2004, p. 185) remains a rather persuasive argument for philosophy, but not for science. Briefly, the argument asserts that “...all of reality is contingent upon the Creator and that all law-governed reality is indicative of intelligent design. Natural laws, including biotic laws, are the very foundation for the presence and recognition of intelligent design in the world” (Zylstra, 2004, p.186). Following the latter portion of Zylstra’s argument, natural law does not necessarily indicate the presence of a Godly figure (or figures), and that the pursuits of science into the universe do not necessitate the existence of a designer.

If not intelligent design theory is dismissed, then what? Besides the newly formulated intelligent design theory, materialist theory is the obvious alternative that has been long accepted to be fact by the majority of the scientific community. Charles Darwin, with his controversial book The Origin of Species, has raised our consciousness about the power of natural selection, and the idea that seemingly irreducibly complex systems can indeed be arrived at through naturalistic evolution. Evolution accounts for the diversity of life and all life processes, and scientists must therefore learn to not discard evolutionary theory for some other appealing theory – such as intelligent design – just because of a few areas of science that remain undiscovered and are, as yet, unexplained.

One can reasonably conclude that intelligent design has not yet posed a threat to evolutionary theory in explaining the origin and progression of life. One must understand, however, that if intelligent design supporters do indeed find evidence that proves, without a doubt, that intelligent design is probable, then this seemingly illogical explanation can truly revolutionize how scientists explain natural phenomena. Yet, evolution has long stood against assertions of design, and has always triumphed in explaining unexplained phenomenon. If the development of an agenda is not crucial for theorists of intelligent design then this theory is most certainly unable to explain the origin of life, for its incoherence and necessity for ad-hoc assumptions is truly irrational to a well-informed scientist.



Footnotes

1. Cornelis G.R.(2006 November) The Type III Secretion Injectisome. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 4, 811-825
2. Pallen M. J., & Matzke N. J. (2006) From the Origin of Species to the Origin of Bacterial Flagella. Nature Reviews. 4 (10), 784-790
3. Katja S., Joachim F., Burnens A. P., & Kuhnert P. (2003) Detection of type III Secretion Genes as a General Indicator of Bacterial

virulence. Molecular and Cellular Probes. 17, 25-32
4. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0427forum.shtml
5. Shermer M. (2006) Religious Belief and Societal Health. Skeptic,12 (3), 20-21
6. Provonsha M. (2006) Religious Belief and Societal Health. Skeptic,12 (3), 26-35


References Cited: (APA Style)

Darwin, C. (1998) The Origin of Species. United States: Random House.
Dawkins R. (2006) The God Delusion. Great Britain: Transworld Publishers.
Dow. J. W. (2007, February 19). A Scientific Definition of Religion. ANPERE.
Frank P. (2004) On the Assumption of Design. Theology and Science, 2 (1).
Peterson G. R. (2002, March). The Intelligent-Design Movement: Science or Ideology? Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 37 (1), 7-23.
Scott E.C. (2005). Evolution vs. Creationism. London, England: University of California Press.
Zylstra U. (2004, March). Reconsidering Fundamental Issues. Intelligent Design Theory; An Argument for Biotic Laws. Zygon: Journal of

Religion & Science, 39 (1), 175-191.

Read more!

Finding Evidence for Intercessory Prayer? (re-visited)

From a scientific perspective, it is quite impossible to acquire empirical scientific evidence to test whether God intervenes with the health of patients. A scientist may try their very best to attain consistent results and data about the effects of intercessory prayer on patients, and I do respect their determination, but by the principles of logic, such results cannot ever be conclusive.

A researcher, whether religious or not, would have to first assume that God’s behavior and actions are very predictable. This is to say that God always follows a certain pattern of determining which patients to heal of their diseases and sicknesses. A researcher must assume that special favoritism does not exist, and that healing patterns are consistent everywhere, all around the globe – unless God is racist or prejudice? Anyway, this assumption should never be taken for it ignores the whole idea of God being omnipotent. God’s omnipotence means that he/she has the ultimate capacity to do whatever he/she decides to do – to heal patients when prayed to. The religious God requires that the Lord be omni- in every way, and not subject to anything.

The other assumption that follows from the predictability of God’s behavior and actions would be that intercessory prayer would cause God to heal the patients, whom are being prayed for. Again, not only does this assumption presume that God is predictable, but also that prayers will lead to influencing God to heal the patients. So then is God’s actions confined to the prayers, or his own decisions? What is for sure is that God is omnipotent, and thus has the authority to decide whether to follow his own plans or not. Humans cannot know God’s decisions, for humans are technically mortal – entities separate from Heaven itself. We have no way of knowing his/her current decisions on the matter of patients.

So whom do researchers look to for answers? Priests or pastors and supposed to be their best bet, as expected by religious individuals. They are supposed to be able to communicate with God more intimately, and are almost just like a receiver of Heaven. Therefore the other assumption goes that priests or pastors can indeed communicate with God himself/herself, and articulate the very messages that God so wishes them to speak. For many decades, this assumption has come under much criticism from scholars of psychology and biblical critics. The first question that would be asked by scholars and critics is if any empirical evidence were present to justify the credibility of the pastors or priests’ words; furthermore, that if it points to them being receivers of God’s messages, and not some other divine being. I believe the common answer is no. I am unsure about the common reasons they give, give this is not important here. What is important is that priests and pastors have no empirical justification for the credibility of their words. The other question scholars and critics may question is whether their words are based on God’s words or their own morals. It has been obvious to many that the decisions of a priest or pastor changes from century to century, from supporting the killing of witches to more support in sexual equality among less fundamentalist religious people.

Having assumed all of the mentioned indefinite or unreliable presumptions, the only one other assumption left is that the number of people engaging in intercessory prayer are presumed to be only those of whom the researchers have registered for to conduct the experiment. The obvious problem here is that a researcher can never determine exactly how many people are actually praying for the patient. Though she may have twelve people on her list for a lady, there may be three other family members overseas who may be also praying for the patient. Even if researchers attempt an experiment by using 500 over patients and various scientific precautions to confirm that all is well, they can never determine the number of people who are praying for a patient. The number of people is important because the other thing they might want to know about is if the number of people praying for a patient affects the progression of their health – towards a positive or negative result. Here, is God really concerned about how many people put in the effort to pray for a patient? Does God not have his/her own plan to follow when deciding which patient to heal?

Ultimately, it is very hard to determine whether intercessory prayer does in fact affect the health of patients. The assumptions made by researchers are so very broad and undefined that it is sometimes hard to determine if results do in fact conclude anything at all. Till this date I am not aware of any surveys or experiments that is conclusive about the effectiveness of prayer on health.


For a Little More Reading:

http://journals.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact1102a06d01.htm

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.pdf

http://www.uic.edu/classes/psych/Health/Readings/Prayer%20-%20in-vitro%20fertilization,%20JrRepMed-Skeptical%20Inquirer.doc

Read more!

Theory and Science

A theory is, simply, an explanation. However, it is an explanation that is based on data, observations, equating to empirical evidence, and is dependent upon hypotheses put forth in the beginning, in order for the information founded to be grounded upon relevant grounds of inquiry. Any form of empirical evidence, thus, has to be collected based on widely accepted principles of research methods. Hypotheses would be formulated intelligently, that is, questions that are based on either healthy skepticism or rational inquiry.

Healthy skepticism and rational inquiry are in fact the basis of science. The ultimate goal in science is to better our understanding about the universe, and to reduce or remove mystery and confusion that may compromise us from searching for improved understanding of the universe. Further into the goal of science, it must be able to make accurate and useful predictions about the universe. Nevertheless, healthy skepticism does not mean simply to question everything's reliability and credibility, but rather, to be sceptical in ways that furthers our understanding. Healthy skepticism questions the truth of a theory, not but judging the conclusion of the theory, or what the theory predicts, but rather, the evidence supporting the theory. When question ing the evidence, check the reliability of the source and the accurateness of the evidence. Then, when a theory is formulated, the total evidence supporting the theory must outweigh contrary theories for it to accepted as a better explanation of a specific issue. Science is all that. To be specific, science is a branch of knowledge that involves a systematic aquisition of empirical evidence. Science is dependent upon skeptics, but requires the presence of visionaries - individuals of whom who may choose ultimately to accept, modify, or remove a theory. With skeptics around, evidence supporting a theory can be checked for errors and may in fact improve our unstanding about something. Therefore, a scientific theory is dependent upon healthy skepticism and rational inquiry.

But what if some scientific theory is formulated that, in the end, calls into question all the evidence that experts of their own fields have collected? What if it creates greater mystery and reduces our understanding of the universe and everything in it? Is this a good scientific theory?
Certainly not. A theory must not only be logical, refutable and simple (according to the criteria of adequacy), it must, in fact, give us greater understanding about ourselves and the universe - if it were ever to be considered as scientific.

What we need is critical thinkers. These are people of whom look at the evidence at hand, whether it be vocal or written, and carefully assess the adequateness, logic, reliability, accurateness etc. of the evidence. If we do not formulate theories through a critical thinking process, theories are as good as useless, because for all you know, the evidence that supposedly supports the conclusions and predictions of the theory may be based on bad evidence.

Read more!