It’s nice to see this topic addressed, as I find it is something that I overlooked as a believer and wish I would have studied earlier.

I take issue with a few of your statements and would like to present a counter to your article.

Your opening paragraph refers to Prof. Krass’s article on his involvement in World Science Festival. He was on a panel that discussed religion and science, opposite two catholic scientists. He says in the article, “These scientists [Dawkins, et al.] have been castigated by believers for claiming that science is incompatible with a belief in God. On the one hand, this is a claim that appears manifestly false — witness the two Catholic scientists on my panel.” However, further on in his article Krass specifies what he disagrees with, “they point out the inconsistency of belief in an activist god with modern science.”

Activist is an important descriptor of the god that Krass says does not mix with science. Two important parts of the scientific method are rendered void, namely observation and reproducibility, if “a ‘god, angel, or devil’ will interfere with one’s experiments.” Like any other epistemology, science has axioms it works from and uses to remain internally consistent.

As you say, “[an] idea of God [that] is incorrect,” very necessarily changes the nature of the discussion. Science assumes no supernatural interference with it’s results to remain internally consistent. So we have three options that come immediately to mind; first, the assumption of non-interference is wrong and the scientific method is therefore unsound in reality while remaining internally consistent. Second, there is no supernatural interference with science and it’s conclusion accurately reflect reality. Third, there is no supernatural interference, however certain things remain outside of science because they are not falsifiable.

Your example of Jesus’ healing of a blind man falls under the third category as an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You say, “We cannot legitimately claim that it is impossible.” and the scientific method wouldn’t claim that either. Rather, it would claim that the hypothesis is not falsifiable (read, not testable) and therefore does not fall under the bounds of scientific inquiry. You are very correct to state that, “one would have to prove that under no circumstances could the actions taken in that story result in blindness being cured,” and that is exactly why science chooses which hypotheses are useful upon a criterion of falsifiability.

In your third paragraph you define the formation of a scientific hypothesis as an action based on faith. To conflate these together is likely to cause a disagreement over semantics; arguing over subjective definitions does little to clarify the now muddy waters. Therefore I will merely state the reasons I disagree with your denotation. Firstly, when a hypothesis is formed is not a fact, it is an idea to be tested; a summation of probabilities. Often it is stated in a mathematical form and has been imagined through a process of induction, Bayesian inference, etc. I don’t think your faith in god is merely a conjecture, a reasonable idea that has not yet been backed up with evidence, I know mine was not. Usually (forgive an assumption on my part) believers god hypothesis is not untested, but is backed up by spiritual experiences, codified in mormonism as a “testimony.”

If you still feel the conjecture of a hypothesis is analogous to your faith, then good for you. Seriously, looking at your perspectives and biases as things that need to be tested before being accepted is great idea. This brings us to your next point, the difference in evidence between the empirical validation of science and the subjectivity of spiritual experience. Science relies on empirical data because of reproducibility, nuclear fission has to be observed, measured and other people have to be able to observe and measure it as well. This reproducibility is not present in personal spiritual experiences. The observations and measurements your testimony is based on are not empirically reproducible by definition.

Obviously, “But a lack of knowledge about something is no reason to disregard it,” is not something science does, it investigates everything it can. It also leaves alone things it can’t investigate, unfalsifiable hypotheses. By the nature of how science investigates things, ie. empirically testing them, it doesn’t investigate things that can’t be put through that process.

In response to your version of Pascal’s wager, I ask if you apply the same thing to the investigation of all incarnations of deity? Do you study Roman mythology for eternal answers and look to Mithra for guidance in hard times? Do you know what Vishnu requires for entrance to Nirvana or Zeus to the Fields of Elysium? In other words, do you take your own advice to heart and consider that your definition of god could be wrong?

I did exactly that which is why I am no longer a mormon.

I also want to address your first comment wherein you state, “I think it all boils down to people mostly believing what they want to believe.” It has been shown (Science! Yay!) that often through the effect of cognitive dissonance our brains will change our beliefs to align with our actions. See: http://www.newsweek.com/id/218637

Regards,

Jason

True, the burden of proof when it comes to religion is not on the scientific world, it is on the religion itself making the claims. But “burden of proof” is a two-edged sword. To avoid being a hypocrite a scientist must either try and figure it out or not. To try and prove the falsity of religion while ignoring anything in its favor, or to judge all religions based on one’s limited understanding of a select few religions, can hardly be called objective.

Regarding the first part of your statement that by my logic “every miracle any religion claims to have happened could have potentially happened”, yes, that is the position I take. My objective here is not to prove that any particular miracle happened, only that using the scientific method we can disprove their possibility. It then falls to each of us to believe what we want to believe based on the limited evidence we have, which I believe is exactly God’s plan. I don’t think God wants to prove anything to anyone, he’s more interested in what each of us really wants, and the only way he can tell is to put us in a state of limbo or doubt so that we’re free to choose.

Using your own example, if you were to figure out how exactly Jesus claimed to have cured blindness with spit, mud, and a quick rinse, then it would no longer be a miracle as it would have a natural explanation. Miracles are supernatural by definition. Science only discusses the natural and has no say in the supernatural. This is why science and religion do not mix.

If there is no God then obviously it doesn’t matter whether one thinks he exists or not. If there is a God, and a plan, and our choices have eternal consequences, but one doesn’t care about any of that, then that’s a choice like any other and will bear with it eternal consequences. Actually, I should restate that, because the core of our doctrine is that choices don’t necessarily lead to eternal consequences. So I should say that if one doesn’t care then that may bear eternal consequences.

I think it all boils down to people mostly believing what they want to believe. Which, from my perspective, is the genius of God’s plan, because since we don’t know for sure what is true, we express in our everyday choices, no matter how small, what type of person we want to be and what kind of reality we want to live in. I have a hunch that in the next life we pretty much get the kind of life we wanted, and if there are any regrets at all perhaps it’s only that we didn’t want a different kind of life. Kind of like how I say I want to be extremely fit with 12% body fat, but then I go and eat Ben & Jerrys. So in the next life perhaps I would be confined to a world where all I do is eat Ben & Jerrys and maybe I’d be happy with that, or maybe I’d look at the fit people who do triathlons for eternity and say “Man, I wish I wanted to be like that…well, maybe not.”

About science proving or disproving God… I still think it’s irrelevant. What if I don’t CARE that “God has a plan” for me? If he really exists and is carrying out some plan on me then whatever… I chose to believe that stuff just happens, good or bad – and you deal with it as best as you can.