"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is the problem with supernatural claims. Those who believe them can always come up with some explanation to avoid these tests. However, you can still test their claims. In this case, you're testing the claim that God answers prayers, which means you see if an individual has better results in healing when prayed for (secretly) or not. Of course, believers will still dismiss the evidence against with some explanation, but that doesn't change that you tested the claim scientifically.

I am an atheist.
Here is an explanation of one unsderstanding of what religion is:

Religion | Definition, Types, Beliefs, Symbols, Examples, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

www.britannica.com

That is not just about the supernatural.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is the problem with supernatural claims. Those who believe them can always come up with some explanation to avoid these tests. However, you can still test their claims. In this case, you're testing the claim that God answers prayers, which means you see if an individual has better results in healing when prayed for (secretly) or not. Of course, believers will still dismiss the evidence against with some explanation, but that doesn't change that you tested the claim scientifically.

Nonetheless testing the claims cannot remotely result in objective consistent results that would meet the standards of Methodological Naturalism

 

[Magic Man]

No, you didn't. You adressed a part of it.
Now explain how objective, observation and fact work beyound the words.

So, what do you think are the limits of science?

 

[Magic Man]

I am an atheist.
Here is an explanation of one unsderstanding of what religion is:

Religion | Definition, Types, Beliefs, Symbols, Examples, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

www.britannica.com

That is not just about the supernatural.

What is the relevance of this?

 

[Magic Man]

Nonetheless testing the claims cannot remotely result in objective consistent results that would meet the standards of Methodological Naturalism

I'm not concerned with Methodological Naturalism. I'm just pointing out that we can test some claims made about supernatural entities.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, what do you think are the limits of science?

Anything that in effect is not an objective process can't be done by science as science, since science as you understand is objective.

 

[Magic Man]

Anything that in effect is not an objective process can't be done by science as science, since science as you understand is objective.

What is an example of "not an objective process"?

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not concerned with Methodological Naturalism. I'm just pointing out that we can test some claims made about supernatural entities.

Methodological Naturalism is the basis as to whether claims of the subjective (of the mind only) supernatural entities, events and beliefs can objectively falsified, confirmed or verified by scientific methods.

Basically in science such claims cannot be confirmed as supernatural, because there are other potential causes. Yes, some have attempted to test such claims, but without consistent verifiable and predicable results.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wrong. I take it you never did a science lab in school where you learned how science experiments works, and how you get results. Results can be interpreted in a discussion.

It is important that the results are repeatable, predictable, and follow objective standards.

 

[Magic Man]

Methodological Naturalism is the basis as to whether claims of the subjective (of the mind only) supernatural entities, events and beliefs can objectively falsified, confirmed or verified by scientific methods.

Basically in science such claims cannot be confirmed as supernatural, because there are other potential causes. Yes, some have attempted to test such claims, but without consistent verifiable and predicable results.

"Such claims cannot be confirmed as supernatural." Correct, but some claims can be tested for veracity, like does God answer prayers. If that happened, there would be certain measurable real-world effects, and we can test those.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Such claims cannot be confirmed as supernatural." Correct, but some claims can be tested for veracity, like does God answer prayers. If that happened, there would be certain measurable real-world effects, and we can test those.

Your dealing with subjective claims beyond that which can be predictably and consistently by the objective methods of science. Actually the reference cited by @mikkel_the_dane defines the limits of Science very well, and would exclude up front what you propose can be tested by science.

Science cannot test for veracity.

 

[F1fan]

"Such claims cannot be confirmed as supernatural." Correct, but some claims can be tested for veracity, like does God answer prayers. If that happened, there would be certain measurable real-world effects, and we can test those.

Funny you bring this up, it has been tested. One famous study looked at the recovery of patients in three categories. 1. Patients not prayed for, 2. Patients prayed for but not told , 3. Patients prayed for and told. The first two categories showed recovery rates consistent with the normal outcomes. This suggested that prayer was not helpful in improving recovery rates. However the third category showed worse recovery rates. This suggests that patients believed that prayer would be beneficial and that their own cooperation with medical staff was not necessary.

 

[Magic Man]

Your dealing with subjective claims beyond that which can be predictably and consistently by the objective methods of science. Actually the reference cited by @mikkel_the_dane defines the limits of Science very well, and would exclude up front what you propose can be tested by science.

Science cannot test for veracity.

Science can test claims about the universe. If you assert that something has an effect on the world, science can test that. Science can test whether prayers works in certain ways. It cannot test whether "God" exists or did something.

 

[Magic Man]

Funny you bring this up, it has been tested. One famous study looked at the recovery of patients in three categories. 1. Patients not prayed for, 2. Patients prayed for but not told , 3. Patients prayed for and told. The first two categories showed recovery rates consistent with the normal outcomes. This suggested that prayer was not helpful in improving recovery rates. However the third category showed worse recovery rates. This suggests that patients believed that prayer would be beneficial and that their own cooperation with medical staff was not necessary.

Yes, that's why I used that example. It's been tested a lot, and essentially being prayed for doesn't result in any significant benefit to the person.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is an example of "not an objective process"?

That I believe in human rights.

 

[Magic Man]

That I believe in human rights.

Are you saying the question of whether or not you believe in human rights is not something science is equipped to test?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is the relevance of this?

That religion is not just supernatiral.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you saying the question of whether or not you believe in human rights is not something science is equipped to test?

No, that is subjective that I believe in human rights and that science can say nothing about human rights as human rights because it is subjective, what human rights are.

Not everyrhing is objective. Science can observe sometihng is subjective, but it can¨t do something which is subjective.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, that's why I used that example. It's been tested a lot, and essentially being prayed for doesn't result in any significant benefit to the person.

Originally you proposed it could be scientifically tested "God answers prayers." I still object to this line of reasoning,

What 'Social do investigate, research and test is the influence of prayer, meditation, support by a peer group, and positive thinking on one's health, well being, and apparent response to prayers, meditation. I refer to Social Sciences, because they rely on subjective observations and inferences as well as objective science. Yes, this research and tests do have positive results, but limited and prayer does not appear to have anymore significant result over meditation, positive thinking and peer support. they often occur in combinations to have positive results.

 

[shunyadragon]

What is the relevance of this?

It has some relevance in proposing the problem of the subjective nature of religious and supernatural claims.