proving or disproving God .... or not - part 4: applying science to the question of God

Here's the first problem with the scientific inquiry being used for either proving or disproving the existence of God. It is only being applied to half of the argument. Scientific methods are being cited for the scientific part of the argument, but not to the conceptions of God. In order to say that you are making your arguments for or against the universal God, you've got to at least acknowledge awareness of all the extremely diverse and complex conceptions of God (the Divine, the Supreme, the Absolute Reality, the Eternal Truth) from the different religious traditions. Without that you're just tossing tennis balls at straw men-women-gods.

And after demonstrating a competent awareness of the complexities involved in the various conceptions of Ultimate Reality, the arguments made for or against the validity of these diverse views must also specifically and directly address those views. You can't just bring them out and leave them on the table to go off and argue about something else entirely.

So here's the scientific method. It starts with careful observation of phenomena using every effort to minimize, as much as possible, any influences of pre-conceived assumptions. (The best way to do this is to seriously consider the views of those you disagree with.) Then applying already established knowledge and understanding to the observed phenomena, construct a series of theories to explain the phenomena. This is followed by experimentation to determine whether the theories accurately account for the phenomena. And then the conclusions are presented to the wider community where other scientists with similar expertise have to be able to replicate the processes and reach the same conclusions - repeatedly and reliably.

And the validity of the replication of results is also dependent on the level and diversity of knowledge, as well as the degree of experience and skill, of the team doing the experiments. The conclusions of any old bozo experimenter doesn't count. So you've got to actually either employ experts on the many varied theories and conceptions of God on your team, or you've got to become one yourself if you want your arguments about God to have any scientific legitimacy whatever.

Atheists don't actually need to employ people who themselves believe in God, or who have some personal agenda counterproductive to the inquiry. Any university worth its football team is going to have a department of religious studies with faculty qualified to discuss the intricacies of all the varied, complex, elaborate, and confusing conceptions of that which different religions call God, or eternal Truth, or absolute Reality as such.

For a genuine (as opposed to a disingenuous) scientific inquiry (as opposed to unsubstantiated pompous pronouncements) into the questions of the existence or non-existence of God, you've really just got to apply the same methods to both sides of the issue.

In point of fact, the scientific method - experience followed by experimentation and then replication of processes and results by other independent, qualified experimenters - has been applied since ancient times to the question of the Ultimate Absolute, the Singular Reality, the Eternal Truth - with some very interesting results.


But here's the catch - or catches - as there are several - see next blog