Atheists deploy science as an instrument to negate religion. Through the deployment of science, if they prove the ineffectiveness of prayer, they believe that they could deny God’s existence.
Atheists refer to verses from the Bible that apparently mandate 100% answer to prayer (Matthew 17:20, 18:19, 21:22; Luke 11:9-10). So if a less than 100% answer to prayer is observed, the atheists suppose that prayer is ineffective, hence the Bible is incorrect.
Then they argue that if the Bible is incorrect, either God is a liar or that fallible man authored the Bible. Since God cannot lie, they posit God’s nonexistence and assert that it was man who authored the Bible, independent of God. Thereby they strive, although in futility, to render historic Christianity as invalid.
This then is the background to the question, “Has science disproved prayer?”
If a person or a group of people prayed for the sick but there was no improvement, then, from among a few deductions, one could reason that prayer was ineffective. Conversely, if the sick are healed through prayer, a plausible deduction could be that prayer was effective. Praying for others is “Intercessory Prayer” (IP).
A research by Kevin Masters et al published in The Society of Behavioral Medicine was exceedingly critical of prayer, “There is no scientifically discernible effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research” 1
But for every scientific research that invalidates the efficacy of prayer there is a study that validates it.
Dr. Randolph Byrd’s research (published in Southern Medical Journal) asserted the effectiveness of prayer. Byrd studied patients in coronary care unit who were assigned to born-again Christians (with an active Christian life) for prayer to the Judeo-Christian God. Byrd concluded that those prayed for were benefitted “with less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and were less frequently intubated and ventilated” 2
Duke University’s Dr. Harold D Koenig is utterly confident about prayer’s effectiveness, “… out of 125 studies that looked at the link between health and regular worship, 85 showed regular churchgoers live longer. There’s a lot of evidence out there.” 3
Relying on science to determine the efficacy of prayer is futile, for science corroborates both the prayer and the anti-prayer groups. Some studies observe healing of patients upon prayer and others do not.
So science does not categorically establish the invalidity of prayer, since it also establishes the validity of prayer.
Significantly, “Should science validate prayer (or religion)?”
A perpetual conflict between science and religion is often observed, for science is the crutch of the atheists in their futile attempt at denying religion.
In response, we could subscribe to evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould’s Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) and assert the total disconnect between science and religion to affirm that they should not overlap. Hence, we could univocally reject science’s intervention to validate prayer.
Albert Einstein, in his paper Science, Philosophy and Religion (Sep 1940), seemed to reject the notion that science and religion should not overlap; he said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” So, on the other hand, we could heed the words of science about religion provided science is valid in its evaluation of religion.
Then again, is it possible for science to determine the effectiveness of prayer?
In order to think this through, we should consider three truths from a theological perspective (since prayer is a religious act that presupposes God’s existence), which are:
- Prayer is directed towards God, seeking HIS favor upon the needy.
- Man merely intercedes; man does not and cannot heal.
- God alone can heal and deliver.
Therefore, when researchers observe patients not being healed upon prayer, it merely signifies God’s decision to not heal. God healed some (in the studies where patients were healed) and did not heal some (during the other studies where patients were not healed).
To reiterate, studies that observed a positive impact of prayer upon the sick revealed God’s positive action, i.e. healing upon the sick, whereas the studies that did not observe a positive impact upon the sick revealed God’s inaction.
Why did God not heal some? That’s for God to answer and not for man to speculate unless God has revealed HIS reasons for inaction to man. God has indeed established certain principles about prayer in the Bible, which is not always in alignment with man’s carnal inclination.
Consider this inactivity of God to prayer in Paul’s statement “…in order to prevent my becoming absurdly conceited, I was given a physical handicap—one of Satan’s angels—to harass me and effectually stop any conceit. Three times I begged the Lord for it to leave me, but his reply has been, “My grace is enough for you: for where there is weakness, my power is shown the more completely.” Therefore, I have cheerfully made up my mind to be proud of my weaknesses, because they mean a deeper experience of the power of Christ. I can even enjoy weaknesses, suffering, privations, persecutions and difficulties for Christ’s sake. For my very weakness makes me strong in him.” (2 Corinthians 12: 7-10, PHILLIPS, Emphasis Mine).
This is not about God’s inaction to prayer, per se, but it’s about God’s action to glorify HIS name through a willing man’s trial and tribulation. God’s inactivity was intended to strengthen and draw people closer to HIM. Therefore, when a sincere believer reads this passage, just as Paul accepted his pain, the believer trusts more in God and learns to accept his pain as a part of God’s grand plan to strengthen HIS people.
Atheists, by rejecting God, reject that God alone, in HIS perfect omniscience, knows what is good for man. But prosperity is not necessarily the most ideal blessing for man.
A testimony offered to God’s glory amidst severe pain is more powerful than a testimony offered in pleasure. This is unadulterated Christianity.
Science then, cannot determine the efficacy of prayer because science has to learn God’s mind – as to why HE heals some and not heal others – so to determine the effectiveness of prayer.
Anybody could seek God’s mind provided they repent and believe in God, seek HIM earnestly in humility and accept God in HIS terms (not on our terms). This is the simple algorithm to seek God’s mind.
Then there are moments where God’s answer to our prayers would not necessarily please us, for HE could delay or reject our plea for just reasons. During these moments, we ought to, in humility, agree with God and not battle against HIM, for to battle against God is neither worthy nor winnable.
So the question is not about whether science can determine the effectiveness of prayer, but the real question is if the atheists, who use science as a means to their futile endeavor, are willing to accept God. Atheists could repent and accept God in humility if they seek HIM earnestly.
Therefore, since science does not disprove prayer categorically, the studies on effectiveness of prayer are of no relevance to Historic Christianity or God.
Endnotes:
1 http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/burke_b/Criticalthinking/Readings/Prayer.pdf
2 http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.pdf
This article was first published at http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2015/05/has-science-disproved-prayer.html
Very interesting observations. One thing that I often question with atheists is “contradictory prayer.”
For example, above you give an example of several people praying for a sick person to be healed. But supposing that the sick person is praying “God, please just end my life so that I can have no more pain in this life. Let me come to your eternal embrace now.” Whose prayer should God answer affirmatively? We don’t have enough information as to the behind the scenes working to know which prayers would be granted justly. Perhaps one of the several people praying doesn’t actually want the person healed, and is only praying because well, he’s a “Christian” and that’s what we do. So, God would be just by not answering that person’s prayer affirmatively, because the man was not sincere. Suppose another one of the people praying was only wanting the person to live for a selfish motive. Again, God would be just in not answering that prayer affirmatively.
However, let’s assume that they were all sincere, but so too was the sick person praying to pass away. Now, we have conflict of interest. Whose interest would God be just in granting.
But further, the very fact that this article exists at all proves that atheists don’t even have a correct idea of prayer in the first place.
What do I mean? Atheists assume that if I pray for rain and believed for rain and that it doesn’t rain that God didn’t answer my prayer. Or if I prayed for a healing for another person and believed for a healing that if that person was not healed that God didn’t answer my prayer.
In other words, prayer for an atheist is equivocal to rubbing a Genie’s lamp.
No, prayer is communication. Just as I can ask you if you would give me a five-spot (p.s. that’s old school for $5.), and you can deny my request, since God is a Sentient being able to make choices so too can God deny our requests.
Therefore it is ludicrous to assume that the effectiveness of prayer to God can only be measured if the result of the prayer was affirmative.
Absolutely true, Chad…thank you for sharing your valuable and highly insightful thoughts….
Sorry Chad but that is not true. Atheists argue that because the same ratio of good and bad things happen to atheists as religious persons all events are random and the law of averages applies. I Grant the fact that people feel better praying for the life of a loved one and it helps them get through traumatic experience.
Your argument is only valid if there is no God. My argument is only valid if there is a God capable of making His own choices in how to respond to requests.since an atheist presumes no God, they have no logical right to argue against Prayer, because it ought to be a moot point if indeed there was no God, right? I mean why argue about praying to a deity that doesn’t exist and just let people live in their own dilusion. The very fact that atheists continue to press these issues seems to indicate that they are incapable of letting people live in their own so-called fantasy and must have a more subconscious understanding or a hope for something out of the ordinary.
I’m glad you pointed this out, because from the Christian world view, this is again another misunderstanding of prayer. Prayer is not about feeling better. I would be hard pressed to believe that David felt felt good when he prayed “My God, my God why have you abandoned me? I have cried desperately for help, but still it doesn’t come.”Psalm 22:1
From the Christian perspective God does exist, is a Sentient self-aware being, is capable of making His own choices, and does not base His decisions on our feelings, but on what is righteous. Only when a person understands these points can they even begin the practice of prayer to God.
An atheist usually likes to get as close as they possibly can to a factual explanation of why something happens. Atheists do not assume or believe any mystical claims based on faith that distinguish a higher power involvement over what can be considered as a confirmed and logical explanation.
Atheists do not care that you are living a fantasy and if religions were to impact only on theists you would not hear from us.
However, reality is this is not the case, for example large numbers of children are indoctrinated within all religions before they can remember the times tables and this is a practice that many ex-theists specifically condemn and from experience state it is contrary to children’s mental health and their human rights.
Religion also impacts on an atheist’s way of life, some I grant you are good, but in many other ways they are not positive such as the gender issues, same sex marriage, paedophile priests, religious intolerance, compulsory prayers and creation taught in schools, abortion and even climate change has been rejected by some on religious grounds, therefore I believe we have a fundamental right to question the actions and morals of all religious beliefs.
Let’s take the first line: “An atheist usually likes to get as close as they can to a factual explanation as to why something happens.” and examine this claim to determine its complete validity.
Let us apply this idea to creation/big bang to prove if this is a factual statement in and of itself.
Is it factual that the Big Bang happened without cause? Or is it factual that the Big Bang happened because there was something that caused it, something that caused the singularity to “explode”.
Whichever case you believe, it is clearly evident that this is a matter of faith.
Therefore, I disregard total validation for the aforementioned claim.
Chad, the big bang for a start is still under investigation. Based on evidence available scientists believe the big bang, however they will change the information based on further evidence that is mostly provided these days by instruments launched into space and sophisticated land based observatories.
Don’t jump the gun, science will have answers as they do for gravity and biological evolution, modern science is very young in terms of time and it is ridiculous to believe science has the answers to everything on demand.
Faith has nothing to do with scientific evidence or facts, it is a word and it is associated and defined in religious terms not scientific terms.
Children are introduced to Santa Clause as a fun person who delivers presents and happiness for them and they soon grow out of it. Being indoctrinated is to seriously believe in a super being who has to be worshiped for life or he sends you to hell. I think you will see where this is going.
I think if you take the time to read my earlier post properly I mention “all religions” and “all religious beliefs” not Christianity.
I have nothing further to contribute to this discussion. Continuing to deny the existence of God will not make Him go away. Also you have not answered my question as to whether or not you personally spend as much time protesting the other religions you mentioned as you do Christianity? Do you go to a Hinduism site and try to get them out of their delusions for example? Would you devote equal time debating with a Hindu as you have me? Please answer those questions. Until you do, I do not believe that you are truly being honest with me, but that you are targeting Christians.
Also Note: the interesting thing about science is that as more discoveries are made more questions pop up. It is endless. There is never a complete consensus when science has answered everything and all questions and I believe that there never will be. The Christian perspective has a reason why that is the case. God is infinite in ability and capable of creating a universe that can never be fully understood by a person. God is capable of creating a universe with infinite information being built into its very fabric. But I do know this, God has built every person with an ability to reject or choose His love. Science can never take away my desire to choose His love. I enjoy science. I enjoy learning about planets and atoms and molecules. But the more I discover the more I realize that I am never going to know everything about the universe. The reason, God has designed it to reveal Himself.
Nonetheless, there is nothing I can do to prove God’s existence to you. However, he is perfectly capable of proving Himself to a true seeker. Are you truly seeking to know whether or not there is a God for yourself or have you rejected this idea as false without truly seeking for the evidence? Is it possible that you have jumped the gun yourself in denying God’s existence without being a seeker of the truth?
Scripture teaches that the evidence of God is around us all the time. But I can’t prove God to you. And I don’t have to. I am finished with this discussion unless you answer my questions. You have merely evaded them.
Your questions “whether or not you personally spend as much time protesting the other religions you mentioned as you do Christianity? Do you go to a Hinduism site and try to get them out of their delusions for example? Would you devote equal time debating with a Hindu as you have me?”
I have been bought up and always lived in a Christian part of the world and those religions you mention are of very few if any believers. I have however blogged with Islamic Muslims and some of the Jewish religion but not everybody I have a discussion with identifies their faith and it does not matter.
I do not go out of my way to go to a Hinduism site or any religious site to talk to them because I am not like a Christian missionary or a door knocking preacher. As I have said in my previous blog that you did not understand I mention “all religions” and “all religious beliefs” I did not target Christianity. Can you not see this?
Atheists do not care what god or deity you worship. I and many do not believe religion has any answers for the world’s problems such as Global warming, immigration, social changes and terrorism in the 21st century and beyond. We find religions often try to force their will through political avenues to comply with their doctrine and many religions marginalise minority groups in our society. Atheists also do not believe in some of the morals that come from religious scriptures and strongly oppose the indoctrination of children among many other issues.
You say “the interesting thing about science is that as more discoveries are made more questions pop up. It is endless.” That is the beauty of science it discovers answers and creates questions, after all it will take many hundreds of years to find out even half of what we don’t know today. Just because the answers are not immediately available does not mean we will never find out.
I have looked at the evidence for a god; the creation of everything by any god is much too simplistic and unbelievable. For example, I could never bring myself to believe the Bible claiming the planet is less than 10 thousand years old or that God created man from dust and we all came from Adam and Eve when the science has contradicted these claims and almost every other Biblical claim during the last 200 years.
I would not like to become seriously indoctrinated and locked into the same emotional state of mind as you and the believers in gods are.
Emotional state? That perplexes me. I am a human. I experience the same emotions as you do. I have good days. I have bad days. I have days when I am overjoyed. I have days when I am depressed. My belief in God is not dependent on my emotions. If you based your faith in science on your emotions that would be ridiculous. Equally so, with my faith in God. I have days when I am angry at God.Yes, it happens. I have days when I am at peace with God. Yes, that can happen too. I experience love, joy, fear, anger, hate, etc. I have days when I am feeling lonely. I have days when I am feeling happy. I am a human being with the same emotions as anyone else. My emotional state is human.
Also, fyi, the Genesis account as described in the Bible doesn’t necessarily contradict evolutionary viewpoints. This method of of interpretation is called theistic evolution. I suggest you research this topic, it might help you understand that you don’t have to reject science to have faith in God.
Emotion is as you say inherent for all humans. Atheists do not have a relationship with a god or deity. On admissions by most religious people it is more than just belief, they have provided details of this relationship or bond as the most rewarding and most loving experience they have ever had, many claim best friend status and like a brother to them. They also say life would not be the same without God because he is always with them and they talk to him every day and would be lost without him etc.
Now you tell me if this is not a very deep emotional attachment of some kind, it is not the normal emotional interaction with another human so what is it? I call it an emotional state of indoctrination that all religions practice, and please tell me how anyone could possibly have this same attachment with science?
The human brain is not given credit for the power it has. It has always incited an intimate relationship by humans with many different gods and deities and it continues today.
Given that you can regard a religion as a continuous tradition extending to prehistoric times without a specific founder most religions roots come from the stories from early humans originating from Persia, India, China and the Greco-Roman world in religion and philosophy leading up to the remaining religions we have today. Christian, Jew, Islamic, Hindu and all the rest today are simply a continuation of the original process.
Of course science over the natural advancement of human progress is gradually exposing the truth behind all the different religious beliefs.
I also want to question you on your point that “if religions were to impact on theists you would not hear from us.” What I want to ask is when have you personally devoted as much time pointing out the flaws of children’s fantasies about Santa Clause or against Hinduism as you do Christians? Until you do that I believe that you are being hypocritical by only narrowing in on Christianity without also focusing equal ammounts of times protesting flaws other religious beliefs.
I neither did imply that science is futile nor that science is evil. I hold a Masters in Science! So I am not anti-science. There are Christian scientists and I respect them much.
With regards to the discovery of glycine…please read this…
“With Earth ruled out, nontheistic origin-of-life researchers have looked to outer space for answers. In several meteorites, they found eight of the twenty bioactive amino acids at only a few parts per million.5 In a comet, they discovered the simplest amino acid, glycine, at less than a part per billion.6 However, the basic (high pH) amino acids—lysine and arginine—were missing.7 Furthermore, no prebiotic synthesis experiment under any conceivable early Earth conditions has produced any lysine or arginine.”
“http://www.reasons.org/articles/responding-to-the-nonempirical-case-for-atheism-white-paper”
Thank you for your reply and I apologise if I assumed too much. I have however come across many people on blogs who have been similarly qualified with contradictory views far more radicle than yours.
Nevertheless, the fact is that you are a scientist and your ideas about prayer are hardly scientific considering atheists do not pray and have the same rate of positive and negative outcomes of any given event. If prayer was successful everybody would become a religious follower of some kind as all religions claim to have success with prayer. As a scientist can you not see the simple logic in the law of averages?
This idea of suffering due to inaction from prayer to bring one closer to God is also non-scientific and is another ridiculous primitive idea dragged into the modern world by religion and in some poor countries they still maintain the old Catholic practice of flagellation. This is a psychopathic ideology. How does pain and despair of any nature have any bearing on strengthening worship of a God who professes to love his children?
You say “So the question is not about whether science can determine the effectiveness of prayer, but the real question is if the atheists, who use science as a means to their futile endeavor, are willing to accept God. Atheists could repent and accept God in humility if they seek HIM earnestly.”
Science as you will know deals with evidence and prayer offers absolutely no evidence of working any better than chance with the law of averages so it is not a futile endeavour it is a common sense fact. Many real atheists like myself would never want to believe in superstition and emotional perceptions of a god especially when it rides like a train over science, evidence and facts while discarding logic, reason and common sense.
Thank you for your response. Although I hold a Masters degree, I am not a scientist 🙂
I have one question for you, how do you think science can disprove the effectiveness of prayer? For science to disprove, the effectiveness of prayer, it ought to disprove God’s existence, so how does science disprove God’s existence.
Your assertions that everything ought to be proven by science is also contentious. How do you scientifically prove the validity of your statement that “everything ought to be proven by science.”
A wise man once said, do not evaluate a worldview by its abuse. Flagellation is an unnecessary practice and I would consider it an abuse of Christianity.
A parent who loves his children will punish the child or will allow the child to take a wrong decision when the child disobeys and is adamant about doing what he/she wants to do. Such is God.
Atheists do enjoy the benefits of God’s grace, hence they have the same rate of positive and negative outcomes…This is what the Bible says about God, and it rightfully sums up God’s grace upon even those who disbelieve and abuse HIM…”He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” Matt 4:45
Thank you for your reply and your question. Considering all religions have never been able to prove their gods do exist, why should it be up to science to prove any god does or does not exist? Unfortunately for all religions scientific discoveries are by natural progression proving that no god has ever existed. I find nothing very scientific about gods because the receptivity mostly boils down to simple common sense and what is supported by scientific and other evidential information and this is the basis of my atheist position.
As the Christian God exists outside the realm of reality we earth bound humans can only provide evidence that exists in the physical world to prove our points that he does not exist. The act of prayer for example does not provide benefits for believers that non-believers do not receive, but the fact that you point out that atheists do actually receive these benefits, does not only makes the practice of prayer unproductive it also supports the observable evidence atheists have understood and maintained all along.
If you take your Matt 4:45 scripture and apply some logic about the issue it appears quite obvious this passage would be selected for the Bible because answering prayers would have required a real higher power. logically you would think prayers should have been an exclusive privilege for believers, however atheists understand only too well the non-Biblical reasons of why they are not.
This leads to your statement. “A parent who loves his children will punish the child or will allow the child to take a wrong decision when the child disobeys and is adamant about doing what he/she wants to do. Such is God.”
Again, if you apply logic to this, it is so very convenient to use this analogy because God just simply does not have to do anything, the indoctrinated followers are already convinced he does everything anyway, and of course if you apply the logic again…… I could go on.
The world we live in today demands scientific innovation not superstition. Thankfully humans are naturally motivated in this direction and sure enough everything good and bad that we have in the physical world directly or indirectly comes from scientific discoveries. I believe it is fortunate that the great majority of scientists are not restricted by religious ideology.
That all religions have not not proved God’s existence is your assertion predicated on an invalid premise e.g. Christianity does offer reasonable evidences for God’s existence. The question is if you have considered the logical arguments: ontological, teleological, cosmological, moral arguments?
You are yet to respond to this question of mine: “Your assertions that everything ought to be proven by science is also contentious. How do you scientifically prove the validity of your statement that “everything ought to be proven by science.””
Moreover, how would science explain why the universe or spacetime exists or any of the other metaphysical questions? What do you have to say about Physicist David Park’s statement, “As to why there is spacetime, that appears to be a perfectly good scientific question, but nobody knows how to answer it.”
Your application of logic seems to be flawed. Here’s why I say this…you said “The act of prayer for example does not provide benefits for believers that non-believers do not receive, but the fact that you point out that atheists do actually receive these benefits, does not only makes the practice of prayer unproductive it also supports the observable evidence atheists have understood and maintained all along.”
I said that there are answered and unanswered prayers and that both the believers and the non-believers ‘receive’ and ‘do not receive’ from God. How does this make prayer unproductive? In other words, what’s the basis on which you term anything productive or not?
I could go on and on about your response…but guess I will stop here for now…thank you for your thoughts
Thank you for your answer to my last comments.
You say “Christianity does offer reasonable evidences for God’s existence.”
My premise is very valid, Christianity is not exclusive, just ask the Islamic Muslims their point of view and the fact you claim only “reasonable evidences” just reinforces how lacking real evidence is.
Considering the “ontological, teleological, cosmological, moral arguments” you mention. Much of these studies involve philosophical assumptions and speculative ideas that really can be applied to any gods past and present. Because of this and to respond to your question we need to validate everything that is real or perceived to be real with scientific evidence or we will always be speculating and never understand anything about everything and still be living in the past when gods were the only answer to many questions.
The Christian God and gods of any other religion through history have only been a creation of reality within an individuals’ mind. The power of the brain and our control over it is complicated and well beyond what we understand today, and as science proceeds to discover more about it we will only then begin to understand many of life’s mysteries such as emotive states of mind that include man’s insatiable appetite to need a god or deity to guide them through life, but I doubt we will have the answers within our lifetime.
You can fudge the statistics and your interpretations about the value of prayer all you want along with faith healing, miracles and words or visions of God, however the reality is that none of these things hold up to scientific scrutiny or will ever convince people even many believers that any physical events are decided and actioned by the will of a god. It is obvious that If these claimed events were actually real and only religious people benefited without question religions would not need to proselytise, you would not need apologetics and atheism would likely die out.
The fact that you cannot define an act of God over and above randomness, the law of averages and simply good or bad luck makes it completely nonsensical that someone has control. This is the reason atheists benefit as much as theists and why prayers are only a traditional act just like a Catholic crossing themselves or the terrible practice of child circumcision for religious reasons.
Good to hear your response.
Here’s a simple question to you….Why do you think the erstwhile high priest of atheism, Anthony Flew became a deist?
God is a maximally great being. If one can conceive of a greater being then that being is the maximally great being. This is fundamental to the understanding of God. In other words, there cannot be many gods, but there can be or is only one God.
Just saying your premise is very valid will not make your premise valid. If you need to dispute a premise that lays the foundation for the “reasonable evidences” then you need to point out the flaw in the premise. Without pointing out specific flaw(s) in any premise, you cannot ascertain the invalidity of any premise.
Before I go any further, let me remind you that….
You are yet to respond to this question of mine: “Your assertions that everything ought to be proven by science is also contentious. How do you scientifically prove the validity of your statement that “everything ought to be proven by science.””
Let me hear your answer to this very specific point and then we shall go forward…
Thanks for your interesting and challenging reply.
Anthony Flew a philosopher and a claimed atheist converted to a deist who was convinced of intelligent design in Biological terms almost entirely because of the DNA investigations and believed the fallacy that Darwin converted to a theist on his death bed.
Anyone who is converted to a belief contrary to the scientific evidence had in my opinion an emotional need, but anyone looking to him as an apologetic for Christianity will be disappointed because his discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith. He claims to not be a Christian, questions the reliability of the New Testament and the existence of an afterlife along with other traditional Christian beliefs.
Is it true that you do not believe the Islamic God is the real God or is the same God as your God? If this is your view the Islamic Muslims really have no God, but they say you have no God. I say there is no evidence for either God or any God.
You say: “If one can conceive of a greater being then that being is the maximally great being.” is exactly the point atheists make. Conceivability is the key word. It is the same as invention or imagination; you hear a story or read something that fires up your emotional feelings and we all know that emotive states of mind produce irrational perceptions, beliefs and actions just like people do regarding love, hate, jealousy, compassion etc. And that is fundamental to the indoctrination and understanding of any gods.
Your question: “Your assertions that everything ought to be proven by science is also contentious. How do you scientifically prove the validity of your statement that “everything ought to be proven by science?”
My assertion is that scientific discoveries are proving god does not exist has nothing to do with “everything ought to be proven by science” however, considering you mention it, just about everything that has been physically and mentally achieved such as investigation, design, invention, manufacture, or grown by man generally has a scientific component involved somewhere, therefore science speaks for science itself not something I have made up.
Please refer me to the source of your reasoning for A.Flew’s conversion.
There can be only one God – a maximally great being. When we consider Islam and Christianity, the nature of God in both worldviews is fundamentally different e.g. Islam is strictly monotheist whereas Christianity believes in a Trinitarian Monotheistic God. So both Islam and Christianity cannot be right about God – only one of them could be right.
In other words, you are wrong to state that just because Muslims contradict Christianity’s God, there cannot be a God.
Christian conception of God is the most complete conception, but let me not get into this thread now.
Atheists deny God’s existence…so as an atheist you are not conceiving a maximally great being, for if you do conceive a maximally great being, then you are no longer an atheist so your statement is incorrect… “You say: “If one can conceive of a greater being then that being is the maximally great being.” is exactly the point atheists make. Conceivability is the key word”
Once again, you are yet to answer this question of mine…”Your assertions that everything ought to be proven by science is also contentious. How do you scientifically prove the validity of your statement that “everything ought to be proven by science?”
Or are you saying that science cannot validate or invalidate everything?
Glad to accommodate your request Rajkumar. This is my source of information http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew.
I agree the nature of God in both Christian and Muslim worldviews is fundamentally different but why can only one be right if indeed any god exists?
With so much doubt about both of the religions values due to hundreds of scripture interpretations, thousands of variations of the ideology, the violence, punishments and antiquated discrimination against gay people, women, animals, slaves and ethnic groups etc. I add this as another reason of doubt that anyone including gods both Islamic and Christian with such terrible histories that are often repeated in our societies today that are mostly ignored by the faithful could possibly exist. This makes for a very good argument that both these Gods were invented by man.
I think you misunderstand. You said “If one can conceive of a greater being then that being is the maximally great being.” Conceive has nothing to do with evidence or facts. Christians conceive there is God but this does not make their God a fact and my point is that God is a conception in Christian minds not a reality. Atheists can also conceive a great being such as the now famous flying spaghetti monster, Superman or an alien, however they would never be conceived and worshipped as creators and gods.
I have never claimed with words that everything ought to be proven by science, however everything in the natural world that impacts on man’s knowledge past and present and the progression into the future does rely mostly on science, don’t you agree? In the world of belief or superstition science currently cannot directly validate or invalidate these claims.
Thank you for the citation. I do wonder how you are yet to accept the existence of God when that very article says, “The book is powerful evidence that one can come to a belief in theism purely from the evidence.”
Truth is exclusive. It is either the God of the Quran is true or the God of the Bible or the God of pantheists etc. Mutually contradicting statements cannot be true at the same time, this is fundamental to the property of truth.
Are you aware that the atheists killed more people in all of mankind’s history than anyone else?
With regards to your objection about conceiving God, Christianity is the most plausible worldview that presents a highly reasonable case for the existence of God…if you have not yet read this article, I suggest you read this….http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1
Science can never validate or invalidate the aspects of the metaphysical domain. So science, as much as it is very useful to mankind, is limited or, shall we say, not all encompassing.
Rajkumar, I think your idea of evidence is quite different to mine.
Before I invest money I need evidence that will satisfy me the investment is not a scam such as the managers and directors have not been made bankrupt or have criminal records and have not formally been engaged in activities that were unethical. I would also assess the transparency of information, the products quality and seeing the device in working mode. I would also check out the sales potential to consumers and of course the return on this investment.
Before I would commit my entire life to any religion it would have to meet these sort of strict requirements and more because a life is the most valuable of all human possessions.
Think about this, you would ask me to invest my life into a religion that is not exclusive but on a par with many other religions? Notwithstanding this fact, we get to choose a religion and as they all claim to be the true religion some or all of them are false. They are all also fragmented into many hundreds of different forms of ideology and this highlights that dissatisfaction in the doctrine exists within congregations.
I have looked at the history of religions because as an atheist I needed to understand what is different from earlier religions and what you could actually call evidence to justify believing in one of the currently surviving religions. Take a look at this with an open mind. http://listverse.com/2013/06/30/ten-influences-on-the-bible/
This web site is not on its own unquestionable, however so much information is available similar to this that even if half of it were factual it highlights the non-exclusiveness and the doubtful origins of today’s existing religions.
William Lane Craig’s words “If God does not exist, life is ultimately meaningless” I believe we are not special creatures, we are the most intelligent animal but we live, die and turn into dust just like every other animal. It is our complex brain that develops overwhelming emotional states that manifests mythical creators, ghosts, devils, spacemen etc. within the mind that appear so real to an individual they have caused hallucinations for many.
On the question “Are you aware that the atheists killed more people in all of mankind’s history than anyone else?” I am surprised that you would even raise this narrow view of these terrible human disasters.
It is a fact, that no conflict or war has ever been waged solely in the name of atheism directly against any religions, however there are many such conflicts that have been waged solely by a religion directly against another religion.
The wars involving the persecution of religions, political opponents and other groups of people have been based on regimes with political ideologies such as fascism, Marxism, Nazism, and communism.
Let me take your evidence into consideration. Reg. investment, you can only see certain documentations or not see them, to ascertain whether your investment goes into a credible organization or not. Documents can be forged or tampered with. This is not new in today’s world. So in essence, you believe in that which has been shown or you believe that which appeals to your finite mind. Without faith, your evidence is zilch, in the face of evil and corruption.
When you step into your own car, the evidence that makes sense to your senses is the fact that your car is functional (it powers on) and that there are no warning lights on. But this does not assure you that your car would go the distance you want it to go. So once again you believe that your car would go the distance you want it to go.
Importing this into our context, you even believe that God does not exist. So your life would be meaningless without faith/belief. In other words, evidences cannot manifest on its own legs for there are good and bad (true or false) evidences, hence belief is mandated by the evidence. Evidence appeals to faith / belief.
Every religion is exclusive, even Bahaʾism. What you call as divisions, I call diversity. Diverse thought process is an ability of a man with freewill. Divisions exist not only in religion, but everywhere.
It is not a narrow view, when I say that atheists were involved in killing the largest number of people in the history of mankind. In fact, you should ask them why they followed Nietzsche’s ideals.
Guess I have written much…will stop now…cheers!
An investor likes to see as many documents as possible. Official documents and questions about them can always be verified with authorities. Unofficial documents can be scrutinised by lawyers and accountants and exposed for their credibility. If this all comes together my faith (that is starkly different to religious faith) comes in the form that I have made the right decision. Of course people such as lawyers and officials can make mistakes and to put unlimited faith into their decisions would be unwise but I could go on and get second, third and more opinions if I wished.
In terms of religion there is no official documentation that can be verified by anybody. The Bible and any other religions documentation is full of contradictions and interpretations that would be considered in legal terms as full of holes. The religious preachers and apologetics will tell you different stories depending on what faith they have decided to follow and the holy scriptures were written by dubious people many decades and hundreds of years after the events had taken place then interpreted many hundreds of times basically destroying any credibility if they had some in the first place.
Faith in religious terms is obviously different to faith in your car starting or getting to the destination, the sun coming up in the morning or that the bus will be on time. These things give my life limited meaning or purpose, however family, friends and surviving every day is my ultimate purpose and it is meaningful when I see my daughter achieve something she wants to do and it is meaningful when I have completed my work and provided what we need to survive or assisted someone else to survive.
To summarise, evidence provided by any religion would never make it into a court room or serious scientific investigation, therefore why would you devote your whole life to something that could only ever be manifested inside your own head?
Nietzsche’s ideals were the philosophy of a man just like Einstein, Darwin, Aristotle, Sagan and any other free thinker. Usually the trend these days is to blame Darwin for Hitler’s atrocities.
You could get an infinite number of opinions but for every opinion there is a source and you need to believe that source for its credibility. Evidence and credibility appeals to faith at the end of the day.
That the Bible is full of contradictions is an age old accusation, and it has been answered more than adequately. The question is whether you did an honest search to read / study the refutations. If you need help in your search, please let me know.
Our judiciary is designed to arbitrate the finite aspects of our finite life. It is not designed or is incapable of arbitrating the search of or validating the infinite being, namely God.
Even if you do a metaphysical analysis of faith, you would find it to be singular and universal.
Why have I devoted my life to God? Because I believe that God’s existence and the veracity of Historic Christianity is credible and factual.
Why not we blame the bankruptcy of the atheistic worldview for the murder of millions? These gory murderers were merely dancing to the music of their DNA…can the reasoning for murders get any worse?
Thank you Rajkumar for your time. If I were to get a number of opinions regarding the credibility of a person or business it is often easily cross checked, if not you simply ditch the investment. If I had as many opinions as there are for the Biblical scripture from apologetics I would definitely be discouraged. The evidence and credibility of anything and everything is not solid in religious terms and this is why would I want not want to base a decision on something that is supposed to be creditable only because I have been informed by administrators that it is.
You cannot say that the Bible questions were answered adequately if there are more than one answer that could or could not be correct. Your judiciary only has the same documentation to make decisions as does the rest of the world and being that the metaphysical analysis term is not easily defined and it cannot mean that it is correct.
One of the major concerns about all of today’s religions is the similarities not just with each other but with the older religions dating back to early man. Christianity and Islamic religions even share Jesus however both religions claim to have different gods. I understand there is different explanations about who Jesus is and what he did, not to mention the Jews who do not believe Jesus was the son of God or a person of the trinity, therefore if this Jesus character was to offer me a financial deal I could not believe he was creditable and would run a mile.
You say “Historic Christianity is credible and factual.” I cannot even consider that. You have to broaden the issue and start a few thousand more years earlier and make it “Historic religion is credible and factual” and this should be the real story behind all religion because study of Christianity starts and finishes conveniently at the Bible. Therefore, your statement should have been “Historic Christianity is credible and factual, but all the others are not”?
DNA may be one of the ways science has for reducing murder of millions, let’s face facts, it can only do a better job than prayer has done.
You are discouraged to believe in the Bible because you are scared to believe, for if you believe then you need to devote yourself to God, and not man. By being an atheist, you are free to do what you want to do (morally speaking…e.g. you could support homosexuality, bestiality, pansexuality etc. without any moral questions). There are no binding principles for your life. But you would not want to admit to your fear, since admitting to fear makes you weaker. Hence, you do not allow any amount of evidence to satisfy you.
Have you really checked the answers to Bible’s apparent contradictions?
Jesus offers you only salvation, and that provided you believe in HIM. As I said before, all religions mutually exclude each other. If there are fundamental differences, then the fringe similarities could be ignored.
No, you do not have to go to Historic religion(s)….all you need to go towards is GOD. There can be only one maximally great being i.e. God. Are you open to honestly doing a study on God? Or have you done it before?
Science reduces murders? Please be enlighten me on this….
Your comment “A perpetual conflict between science and religion is often observed, for science is the crutch of the atheists in their futile attempt at denying religion.”
I cannot believe for a second that science is futile in any sense of the meaning. It may appear to many theists that science is either the devils work, the scientists are colluding to destroy religion or everything scientists discover is either to fool us into not believing in creation or God has allowed science to explain his creation.
Tell me how reasonable any of those views are considering they must represent many or even most of the Christian faith?
And it would be very interesting what Christianity perceives this anti-religious progress as because this will drive the wedge between science and religion even further.
http://www.space.com/33011-life-building-blocks-found-around-comet.html
For the first time, scientists have directly detected a crucial amino acid and a rich selection of organic molecules in the dusty atmosphere of a comet, further bolstering the hypothesis that these icy objects delivered some of life’s ingredients to Earth.