The God of OT vs the God of NT? Are they the same?

[Blastcat]

Well, if empiricism only yields valid data to groups and never to individuals, or only to external observation by third parties and never to one's private spiritual experiences, then maybe I am confusing it with subjectivism.

Yes, that was my point. You confuse a completely personal experience with one which can be verified by others.
Notice your errors.

You say that

"IF empiricism ONLY yields valid data to groups and NEVER to individuals... "

I don't understand.. we only ever experience anything at all in a purely personal, individual way. However, we can only TEST and VERIFY by way of others. That is, if you ever hope to convince any other person.

Because, that's the point here, right? To convince others? We already know that you have convinced YOURSELF.. so that's hardly the question.

But you forget that you might want to prove your individual experience to others. So, the others need to verify it somehow.
We KNOW you make a claim. A lot of people make all kinds of claims. We don't just believe every claim made by everyone.
But the tests and experiments used to validate your claims are completely accessible to yourself, as well.
To all others, in groups and as individuals, including yourself.

But I think objectivity is not impossible when applying the scientific method to the realm of private spiritual experiments and their outcomes.

- If some claimed spiritual event has some observable outcome, then yes, scientists can test for this.
They HAVE tested prayer. Prayer is claimed to have to some effect on reality. We have the outcomes for those tests. You might have heard of the findings.

One's inward realm can only accommodate a single observer: but does that diminish the reality of experiences and experiments conducted in that realm? To the sole observer, it does not.

- Right. You can have your personal individual experiences. But if you want to tell us that what you believe in matches some aspect of reality.. then you would need to convince us somehow.

Empirical evidence would be one of the best methods. If you can't do that.. then your claim of having some truth falls flat. All we have is your assurances, beliefs, conviction and promises. We are fully aware of those. And they simply are not empirical, verifiable data that would prove or disprove your beliefs.

It's as if you thought that your belief is what demonstrates the truth of what you believe in.
If that's the case.. then anyone with any kind of belief and conviction has demonstrated the truth of their claims.
We would end up, in this case, believing just about anything, and that would surely include many false things.

I am only interested in believing in true things.

Sure it's true that "confirmation bias" is more likely to plague the religious and the superstitious, but scientists are not immune to it either.

That's why the scientific method is so rigorous in it's demand for good evidence. That's one of the only way to make sure that bias isn't operating. In your case, it almost seems as if confirmation bias is a virtue, instead of something to avoid at all costs.

Whether motivated by personal pride, the desire for prestige, or the need to sustain a grant-funded clinical research program, a scientist's human nature is potentially just as injurious to his or her objectivity as a non-scientist's.

- And that's why the scientific method includes a very strict PEER REVIEW process.. so that natural human error and fallibility doesn't pass as good science. The "non-scientist".. just asserts things with no demand for external, empirical evidence.

This is a HUGE difference in method. Science is extremely rigorous, and religion is extremely subjective.

Personal, private experiences and experiments in the area of religious faith are always, of necessity, going to be conducted solo; likewise empirical data will always be collected from the same unique person's sensory input, and verification performed by a panel of one as well.

Yes, a personal, private experience is solo.
No, empirical tests are not solo. Verification is done publicly, by others. And if interesting, repeated by others. And then verified again... and so on. You may do well to read up on the scientific method.

Understanding these insurmountable limitations, why not at least allow for the possibility that religious testimony may in fact be a sincere attempt at objectivity, instead of dismissing such conclusions as hopelessly and inevitably subjective?

- I personally never bother to doubt the sincerity and honesty of people making claims. I am more interested in what evidence they bring to the table to demonstrate their claims are true.

You may be perfectly honest and sincere, and yet be wrong. Any claim might be true or false. So, a person making a claim is only the start of the investigation, not the end. I need facts, and not promises.

I need data not more claims. I need evidence and not emotional pleas.
There are about 8 billion people on Earth.. all of whom can make any number of claims. Not all of these are true.
I need some kind of evidence to tell the true claims from the bogus claims.

Oh, and yes, there are bogus claims out there....

Why wouldn't I be interested in objectively proving its efficacy to myself, beyond doubt? Yes, I do apply "critical thinking" in evaluating spiritual or religious experiences. And I'm neither a mystic nor a believer in magic.

It seems as if you have convinced yourself of the miracle claims you believe in are true. The question here is the methods you use to do that doesn't work with outsiders.

When I use the word "magic" I refer to mind over matter thoughts influencing nature .. I know you might not call what you are describing as magic. but I do. You might prefer the word "miracle".. which is magic done by a god.

A miracle is god magic. But it's just magic to me. And to me, magic isn't real. So far, no evidence that magic is real. Lots of evidence that magic OR MIRACLES are stories and fantasies.

So that's what I've done, independently, privately, systematically and with meticulous attention to details

Well, usually, when we prove something, it's to other people.. So, you've managed to prove to yourself that what you believe in is true. I am still waiting for any kind of external proof or evidence that would convince ME. But it's nice that you have convinced yourself in the matter. Sounds like a grand experiment in total confirmation bias, as I've stated before.

That's one of the very worst kind of method to acquire "proof" that there is. Science completely rejects that method as hopelessly subjective.. and yes, NOT at all empirical.

When you mix up two opposite words together, we can't expect to have a meaningful discussion of either. Subjectivity is not empiricism.

Sorry...

So, it appears to me that you have verified your private, personal, subjective experience in a completely private, personal, subjective way and still insist that you engage in empirical analysis.

I guess when you use the words empirical or subjective that they are completely interchangeable.
I don't see the utility of that conflation.

What you seem to not consider is that by taking a position like the disciple Thomas, who was a skeptic either by choice or by nature, you forever distance yourself from God, and from the possibility that he will prove himself privately to you, as well.

- Until I have any evidence for such a being, as you claim exists, I don't consider myself "apart" or "away" or "near" or "close" to it. I don't "FEEL" anything concerning this claim you make.

I also am not feeling any distance from ALLAH or VISHNU or SANTA... or ALIENS... prove to me that any of these exist, and then we can talk about why I should WANT to be close to any.

And then, we can have a lovely discussion on how best to achieve those goals.. I'd want to use the scientific method for that too.

Science is about getting results. Science is simply the best method for getting results that we have at the moment, so, I'd want to use the best method available.

It's also very weird to me that this ALL KNOWING god would insist that I FIRST have to believe fervently in order to believe fervently.
Seems like an illogical demand that I should throw away logic.
That quite literally doesn't make "SENSE" to me.

I would conclude that IF this god is actually all knowing.. he would not make such a logical error. HOWEVER, I am all too aware that HUMANS are not all knowing .. and so are prone to ALL KINDS of logical errors.

I would not expect an all knowing being to demand such poor thinking. What's the value of poor thinking skills?

What kind of proof would truly convince you? How about a video of a man praying for such-and-such in scene 1, and in scene 2 the answer to his prayer being manifested. Would that suffice? Probably not.

Exactly. Scientific tests were made to prove the validity of prayer.. and have demonstrated that prayer is infective. Anecdotal evidence is the poorest kind of evidence we know of. That is why it is never allowed in courts of law.

But, it seems to me that an all knowing god would know PRECISELY what it would take to convince even the most hard headed skeptic on earth.

God either doesn't want or doesn't care to.. or.. god isn't all knowing, or.. god isn't real at all.

The God depicted in scripture is not like that. He demands faith and patience. He demands obedience. He demands prayers that are fully in line with his will.

Humans who have these characteristics would be called sick. But it's supposed to be great things for a god. Ok..
I'm not impressed with this emotionally stilted, ego bound god of yours. But then again, I have some experience with people who display signs of personality disorders. They are quite demanding, too.

I'm not at all surprised that the god depicted by a barbaric people would have many emotional problems. We have learned a lot about PTSD in recent times.

 

[RossRonin]

If some claimed spiritual event has some observable outcome, then yes, scientists can test for this.
They HAVE tested prayer.

Well, maybe. Scientists have tested something they identify as "prayer" but it seems to me that such a process of making requests to God ought to be defined by religion, not by scientists. If science defines what prayer is, and all tests fail, why does everybody leap to the conclusion that the failure lies in the activity? Try looking at the individuals doing the praying: who they are, what they are, what they believe, how they live, how they pray, and what they are praying for. Therein lies the failure.

Prayer, according to scripture, is qualified by numerous factors already stated here: obedience, faith, patience, and so on. Because these preconditions are subject to God's evaluative standards rather than some outside observer's, it is impossible for you to say that prayer has been tested and does not work. In light of how the scriptures define effectual prayer, prayers that have no demonstrable results are more reasonably concluded to be faulty prayers, or prayers from an individual who is incompetent and unqualified.

So rather than starting with "prayers" as defined by religion (which we are testing here), science ends up testing something altogether different: something that appears to be prayer, but is not; something that is "prayer" only by presumption of otherwise scientific minds.

You can't say, "We shall now scientifically measure the effects of pole vaulting!" and then hand a pogo stick to a monkey. You need a real vaulting pole, and you need someone qualified to use it.

If you want to realistically assess the effects of religious prayer, define prayer by religions standards. "We know that God does not hear sinners," for example, "but if any man be a worshiper of God, and does his will, him he hears...The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much...and whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight...whatever things you desire, when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them...but ask in faith, nothing wavering...praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit," and so on. Find someone qualified to pray those kinds of prayers, and you'll find that God does answer prayer.

I admit, it's almost an impossible experiment to conduct, considering all these virtually unmeasurable preconditions. But that is the very reason why an honest, well-informed scientist should acknowledge beforehand that a metaphysical religious process does not submit itself easily to scientific methods of verification.

It's as if you thought that your belief is what demonstrates the truth of what you believe in.

What demonstrates the truth is the empirical evidence I myself have verified (objectively, in reality, by personal experience) that prayers prayed in full conformity to the conditions set forth in scripture do elicit a response from God: I tried it, and it works. The fact that I don't always attain to those preconditions in no way diminishes the results of the many experiments conducted under the right conditions, that yielded predictable results.

But I am forced to agree with you here, based on scripture. Paul says, "Faith is the evidence of things not seen," so yes, you're right: belief itself stands as evidence of God's existence, seeing as how nobody has faith to begin with unless God gives it to them; and unless you are initially willing to accept and love the truth embodied in Christ's life and teachings, God has no reason to put an ounce of faith in your heart. But again, this "evidence of things not seen" is only evidence to the bearer of that inward belief or faith, and not to a panel of skeptical observers. Verifiable empirical evidence can in fact testify to a panel of one (don't tell me you have never verified evidence on your own and thus been convinced of the efficacy of some activity; peer-reviewed confirmation is not necessarily indispensable for the scientific method to work for us on an individual basis).

It seems as if you have convinced yourself of the miracle claims you believe in are true.

Walking on water is a miracle. Resurrecting a dead body is a miracle. Having a sick child recover is not a miracle. Miracles are not the objective of my prayers, and miracles have never resulted from my prayers.

I guess when you use the words empirical or subjective that they are completely interchangeable.

Given the nature of spiritual or metaphysical experiences associated with communications with an ostensibly intelligent and invisible Creator, it does seem that subjectivity is inescapable; nevertheless, I think that if you take into account that scripture clearly dictates both the quality of an acceptable prayer, and the qualifications of an acceptable subject, you can still grant some degree of objectivity to the person gathering the evidence.

Science is about getting results.

Well then, science is on my side.

It's also very weird to me that this ALL KNOWING god would insist that I FIRST have to believe fervently in order to believe fervently.

Faith comes by hearing the word of God, scripture teaches. So you don't have to believe first. You have to receive first. Then, the promise of God is that once you hear the word of God (not audibly, but with the mind and will, the inward "ear" that either accepts or rejects an idea, which Jesus alludes to when he says, "If any man has an ear to hear, let him hear"), it follows that God will cause that message to generate faith in your heart. So it's a voluntary mental activity that determines whether you come to believe, or come to disbelieve. It's an act of acceptance, a decision to give credence to someone's testimony even if only just long enough for you to prove or disprove that testimony. And I think many who profess scientific skepticism merely find it a handy excuse for the negative emotional response (antipathy, distaste, annoyance, discomfort) the message of Jesus initially generates in them, being wholly contrary to human nature.

 

[Blastcat]

Well, maybe. Scientists have tested something they identify as "prayer" but it seems to me that such a process of making requests to God ought to be defined by religion, not by scientists.

- I think you will find that the religious people defined what prayer was and what they claimed would happen. The scientists simply tested that. You are worried that the science used was not good science. Yes, bad scientific methods would yield unreliable results. But we don't have to assume that bad science was used in all of these tests and meta-studies.

I really doubt that the religious organizations would allow for poor science when testing for prayer claims to god, and ESPECIALLY when most of the results were NEGATIVE.

Prayer has failed consistently to provide positive results. You can check this on the internet.
Studies on intercessory prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But that is the very reason why an honest, well-informed scientist should acknowledge beforehand that a metaphysical religious process does not submit itself easily to scientific methods of verification.

If some phenomena can be observed, as in the efficacy of prayer, then science is the best method to test for the claimed effect. People prayed, there was little to no effect, and in some cases, negative results were observed.

Prayer does not heal. This has been tested. And it will be tested again, since, people continue to make the claims.

What demonstrates the truth is the empirical evidence I myself have verified

This is not empirical evidence.

Miracles are not the objective of my prayers, and miracles have never resulted from my prayers.

Then we agree. Praying does not produce miracles. What DOES praying produce?

Given the nature of spiritual or metaphysical experiences associated with communications with an ostensibly intelligent and invisible Creator, it does seem that subjectivity is inescapable

- Good, we agree. Religious experience that is said to be personal and unique to the individual is subjective, not objective.

I think that if you take into account that scripture clearly dictates both the quality of an acceptable prayer, and the qualifications of an acceptable subject, you can still grant some degree of objectivity to the person gathering the evidence.

1. I'm not sure that you own the clear dictated quality of an acceptable prayer. This would be disputed by religious people.
2. Evidence of what? What IS an acceptable subject?
3. If it's to be objective, we need to verify this other than in a purely subjective manner. What is that method?

Well then, science is on my side.

- Of course it is. If you make a claim that prayer affects reality in any observable way, science is your BEST friend to test for that. You can trust the results using the scientific method. Prayer has been tested using the scientific method and has produced the result of NO discernible effect of prayer on healing the sick.

So you don't have to believe first. You have to receive first.

What is it that I'm supposed to receive first?... Belief that I can receive belief first before I believe?

I can do this? I can believe before I believe? That's surely NOT what you mean. I have to admit that I'm hopelessly lost. I have literally no idea what you mean.

When I try to guess.. it turns out like a silly parody of circular thinking. So, I deleted it twice.
Maybe you can expand that bit of logic to me.

the word of God (not audibly, but with the mind and will, the inward "ear"

Inner ear sounds suspiciously like "IMAGINATION" to me. How is it different?

it follows that God will cause that message to generate faith in your heart.

So, if I use my "inner ear" and "listen".. to.. God's word and that's the method of receiving faith. Ok.. I've listened.. God isn't speaking. Now what?

So it's a voluntary mental activity that determines whether you come to believe, or come to disbelieve.

So, I need to WANT to believe in order to believe.. is that what you're saying? But I only WANT to believe in something that can be demonstrated as true. I don't WANT to believe in something that I get convinced about using bad methods.

ACCEPTING FIRST that something is true is not to me, a good method for VERIFYING if something is true or not.
That's the wrong way .. I use a reliable method and if I can verify if something is TRUE.. only THEN do I accept that it IS TRUE.

I don't start with my conclusion and work backwards the way you seem to describe it.
That's what we call circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is a horrible method to find out if anything is true.

I could NEVER accept FIRST that something is true if I want to find out if it's is true or not.
Your method seems to be ACCEPT that it's TRUE FIRST, and then it seems way more likely that it IS TRUE.
That may be your way, but it certainly isn't the SCIENTIFIC WAY... and not empirical at all.. nor objective.

This is pure subjectivity and bad thinking.

It's an act of acceptance, a decision to give credence to someone's testimony even if only just long enough for you to prove or disprove that testimony.

Disprove a completely subjective experience? .. I can't do that. And that is precisely why subjective testimony isn't allowed in most courts of law as evidence. Personal testimony has to be backed up by EVIDENCE.. external to the individual. Otherwise, the testimony is perfectly useless.

Now, of course, if there IS external, objective, empirical evidence to SUPPORT the subjective claims, then, we can test for that using science. Not before.

And I think many who profess scientific skepticism merely find it a handy excuse for the negative emotional response (antipathy, distaste, annoyance, discomfort)...

Those are precisely the reason why the scientific method is so powerful. It has great methods for FILTERING for emotional bias.
Religion seems to thrive on emotional POSITIVE bias.

But that is bias, none the less. Bias can be negative OR positive. IF you have a positive bias, it will skew your results towards a positive conclusion every time.

the message of Jesus initially generates in them, being wholly contrary to human nature.

I can't agree with that statement, either. Sorry.

We fully know that the IRRATIONAL is not contrary, but completely ACCORDING to human nature. It's rationality that is a bit more difficult. MOST people on earth are superstitious. It takes YEARS of study to get rid of them. Whenever some guru or magic man makes claims, he garners almost IMMEDIATE acceptance.

Doesn't say much for your acceptance first method. Sorry.

I do NOT start off an investigation of claims by ACCEPTING the claims.

EVER.

So, your recommendation that I should do so for YOUR god claim ONLY is noted, but completely rejected.

 

[RossRonin]

I do NOT start off an investigation of claims by ACCEPTING the claims.

C'mon, let's be honest. If your three best friends all claimed that Joey's Pizzeria makes a really incredible calzone, you are going to accept their claims initially, and afterwards conduct your investigation.

Religion is no different. You decide right from the beginning whether you will receive, or refuse, claims made by others. Of course you go ahead and taste the calzone for yourself, and see if it really is good. But your first inclination (unless you're a chronic skeptic about everything in life) is to accept the word of your friends, and afterward start off your investigation.

By the way, if you were the last person on planet earth, I am sure you would not discard all future attempts at objective empiricism (as it would become necessary to your continued existence in a variety of ways) for the sole reason that the results of your experiments could never be subjected to peer review. Peer review is not essential to the scientific method.

The scientific method works fine with just one individual at the helm. I can objectively duplicate an experiment and objectively confirm outcomes without having to worry about what a panel of atheists and skeptics thinks. Just as you, acting solo, can determine the quality of Joey's calzones and whether they live up to their reputation. All you have to do is taste one, then another, then another, till over time you arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

And that is what I have done. Psalm 34:8 recommends, "O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusts in him." Okay then, I run that experiment on my own a few times, and guess what? It turns out King David's claim is true after all. But I first have to decide: Do I accept these claims and thus proceed to approach God and "taste and see" whether he does indeed exist, and whether he is good? Or do I reject them, and conduct no further investigation of my own. It is common practice among all of us, scientists and atheists and pathetic believers alike, to accept claims from those we choose to trust, and then investigate further (on our own) to prove or disprove them.

 

[Blastcat]

C'mon, let's be honest. If your three best friends all claimed that Joey's Pizzeria makes a really incredible calzone, you are going to accept their claims initially, and afterwards conduct your investigation.

Religion is no different.

That's right. I don't equate the two thousand year philosophical debate of god's existence with choosing what CALZONE to eat with a bunch of friends.. wow.. go figure.. But, apparently, whether god exists or not IS the same as ordering Italian fast food.

Go for it, tiger.

So, let me throw you a bone. LETS SAY that I don't give a flying **** about what calzone is better or not. I MIGHT NOT USE ANY METHOD AT ALL... I'll just let them order what stupid food they want. BUT.. if the food MATTERS in any way.. say, if I was a FOOD critic and my LIVELIHOOD depended on what calzone was the best, you can be sure that I would be extremely skeptical.

I would only use the BEST METHODS to know what the criteria for the perfect calzone was and how to evaluate them. YOU CAN BE SURE OF THAT.

You decide right from the beginning whether you will receive, or refuse, claims made by others.

No. I said no. I meant no. Is that clear? I don't DO THAT. EVER.
Not when I'm deciding if something is true or not.
I don't START MY INVESTIGATION WITH THE CONCLUSION I WANT because circular reasoning isn't GOOD reasoning, it's BAD reasoning. Got it?

Go ahead and use all the bad reasoning you like.. BUT I WILL NOT FOLLOW YOU.

Sorry, but I'm not that much of a bad thinker. Sorry that you don't believe me. It happens.

. But your first inclination (unless you're a chronic skeptic about everything in life) is to accept the word of your friends, and afterward start off your investigation.

Oh.. the pizza.. yeah.. I have NO REASON to be skeptical at all about a pizza.. WHO CARES.. but.. if it IS something important, such as the debate of God's existence.. no, I don't use the worst possible thinking methods available. YES.. then I DO TRY TO BE skeptical.

GOD ISN'T A PIZZA FOLDED UP.. ok?

Peer review is not essential to the scientific method.

If I was the last person on earth, I could not HAVE peer review. BUT I am NOT the last person on earth. AND peer review IS an essential part of the scientific method. Look it up. I can't be bothered to convince you about reality.

The scientific method works fine with just one individual at the helm. I can objectively duplicate an experiment and objectively confirm outcomes without having to worry about what a panel of atheists and skeptics thinks.

Oh I know you can't be bothered. It shows. But your self-evaluation is not going to fly in the REAL scientific community. Sorry. And you are aren't going to convince me. You've completely failed at that. Now you insist.. but that repetition wont help. We've been through this before.

Yes, your delusion seems real to you. YES.. of course, we would EXPECT that to happen. That's how we DEFINE delusions.
You have completely subjective tests for your completely subjective experiences and you conclude that you are OBJECTIVE.

But you aren't. You are confused and ignorant about how science works, and most likely wrong about your conclusions.

Just as you, acting solo, can determine the quality of Joey's calzones and whether they live up to their reputation. All you have to do is taste one, then another, then another, till over time you arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

You are talking about PURELY subjective tastes. This is a purely subjective test about a purely subjective experience, Yes, of COURSE, I can identify what I LIKE. But that is not objectivity. It's SUBJECTIVITY.

you have many words confused.

"O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusts in him."

Yep, that's pretty much a pure subjective introspection like the favorite pizza. Not objective at all..

 

[RossRonin]

If you accepted their claims you wouldn't NEED to do any investigation.

It's not so much that I need to investigate: it's that I want to. When I hear that the calzone at Joey's Pizzeria is good, I want to enjoy its goodness like my friends did. It's the same with religion. When I hear that the Creator is good, I want to enjoy his goodness just like my friends do.

Peer review IS an essential part of the scientific method. Look it up. I can't be bothered to convince you about reality.

In my hypothetical scenario, peer review would be impossible. Whether you were the last person on earth, or someone marooned on an obscure island, my point is still valid. Scientific investigation and objective empiricism would not be wholly lost or inaccessible to you simply for lack of peers.

And let me make one more comment about prayer. If you subject a private, personal, spiritual experience to laboratory methods of investigation, of course the results will fail. Prayer that fulfills the dozen or so prerequisites enumerated in scripture is incapable of scrutiny by normal scientific methods. Skeptics talk about prayer as if it's a simple, straightforward act that can be observed and analyzed in a sterile clinical environment, but in the context of religion it is anything but simple and straightforward.

According to scripture, in order for prayer to compel God to act it has to be prayed in the authority of Christ, according to the will of God, with faith, with patience, with fervency, sincerity, and earnest desire; it must come from a person that in God's sight is humble, holy, and continuously obedient; and so on. It's no wonder clinical testing of prayer yields zero results. Where do you find a group of people who can pray according to those parameters, and once you find them, how can you be sure they are as holy, obedient, humble, and sincere as they profess or appear to be? No one can read hearts.

You are talking about PURELY subjective tastes.

No way. I'm talking about three people affirming the truth of something: the calzone at Joey's is good. If that was purely subjective, why would anyone ever listen to and accept the testimony of friends? Friends share experiences with us all the time, and because we all share human appetites, and because humans (at least those who like to eat Italian) all appreciate good calzone or pizza or pasta, there is nothing illogical about receiving your friends' claims and then acting on them in faith: you believe they are conveying accurate information when they say, "O taste and see that the Lord is good," and when they testify to you of their personal experiences of God's goodness; then on their advice and testimony you act, and discover for yourself that yes, the Lord is good.

You can belittle the analogy if you want, but the similarity between eating good food (to sustain physical life, and satisfy hunger) and absorbing good words into your psyche (to sustain eternal life, and satisfy spiritual hunger) makes perfect sense.

 

[Blastcat]

In my hypothetical scenario, peer review would be impossible. Whether you were the last person on earth, or someone marooned on an obscure island, my point is still valid. Scientific investigation and objective empiricism would not be wholly lost or inaccessible to you simply for lack of peers.

Yes, you have now established that without any peers available, there can be no peer to do any kind of peer review.

If you subject a private, personal, spiritual experience to laboratory methods of investigation, of course the results will fail.

It's interesting that you would know the results of laboratory methods BEFORE they were used. How do you know that the results will fail, as you say.. "of course"? Do you know the results of tests before they are made? Do you know the results of all possible future tests?.. I would guess... that you don't have that crystal ball capability.

No way. I'm talking about three people affirming the truth of something: the calzone at Joey's is good. If that was purely subjective, why would anyone ever listen to and accept the testimony of friends?

You don't seem to know the difference between the words "subjective" and "objective".

TASTES are subjective. The word "good" is subjective. What a "good" calzone is a subjective decision.
Or.. if I am wrong, please supply the definition of a good calzone in an objective way.

We like our friends. That's why we pay more attention to their tastes than other people who are not our friends. We don't have to believe whatever our friends say is TRUE. Just because someone is my friend, it doesn't mean he is the world's authority on what a good calzone is supposed to be.

 

[RossRonin]

without any peers available, there can be no peer to do any kind of peer review

Lucky for me, "peer review" does not establish reality. It establishes credibility in the scientific community and the general public, but the fact remains: tons of excellent science have miraculously yielded accurate data and valid hypotheses initially to a review panel of one: and that's why you can't condemn any person, scientist or lowly saint, from employing empiricism and forming hypotheses on their own. I am stating the obvious, and you keep demanding "peer review" as if nothing can be confirmed to the individual by the individual. That's untrue historically and I'm sure you understand that. To keep mocking a person's observations and conclusions derived from their private spiritual experiences is to go beyond the pointless call for independent review, to where all you are doing is implying that the individual a liar at worst, or at best a self-deluded mystic.

Do you know the results of tests before they are made?

Of course I do, if the tests involve "the effectiveness of prayer." The results must be unreliable, because as I pointed out, the scriptures present a laundry list of preconditions that qualify effective prayer, and it is virtually impossible for any human being to judge accurately the presence, absence, or degree of those preconditions by outward observation. We are talking about a spiritual experience that hinges on spiritual preconditions. We are not talking about experiments in natural science.

TASTES are subjective. The word "good" is subjective. What a "good" calzone is a subjective decision.
Or.. if I am wrong, please supply the definition of a good calzone in an objective way.

Yes, you're wrong, but I'll give it one more try. My analogy was based on a group of friends who like and appreciate Italian culinary goodness. The analogous example is a group of friends who like and appreciate spiritual and moral goodness. And the question is not a matter of subjective judgments within those categories, but of broad objective judgments of generalities (good, or bad):

1. Is the Italian food good, or is it bad?
2. Is the Lord good, or is he bad?

The message of religion is not shared much differently than the message of friends communicating about food. "Hey, this is delicious, give it a try." King David similarly recommends to his contemporaries, "O taste and see that the Lord is good." Many things we do in life begin with a personal recommendation from someone we know or someone whose opinion we trust. And opinions become less and less subjective as we broaden the scope of our subject. For example, when you share an opinion that some item of food is good, the word "good" of necessity must first apply to the broadest standards of acceptability: not burnt to a crisp, not salted with wild abandon, not assembled from rancid ingredients, and so on.

Food can be tested outside the mouth to determine whether it's burnt, or saturated with salt, or decomposing; but spiritual things, including deities, cannot be tested scientifically except on a personal, private, individual level. Thus it seems ludicrous for someone to say that prayer has been scientifically proven to be ineffective. Transcendent experiences, or activities in the metaphysical realm, cannot be submitted to the scientific method. A person may give the outward appearance of engaging in some spiritual activity, but the spiritual realm is too far removed from scientific evaluation to allow its activities to be verifiable by simple observation. And if you can't verify that a person is truly qualified to pray an effective prayer, and you can't verify that they are indeed praying according to the parameters of effective prayer as outlined in scripture, then you can't presume to test prayer by normal scientific methods.

 

[Blastcat]

Lucky for me, "peer review" does not establish reality.

Peer review doesn't establish reality. We agree.
Peer review means that your PEERS review your CLAIMS to see if they are true or false.

IF you do not get outside confirmation that your claim is true or not, then, you MAY have only convinced yourself. There are LOTS of crazies out there who have convinced themselves about things that nobody else can verify in any way whatsoever.

You can convince yourself about anything you like using any method you choose. BUT if you ever want to convince SOMEONE ELSE, then you will just have to present some evidence they can LOOK at... and criticize using the best methods available.

But feel free to believe whatever your heart desires. Who is stopping you?.. absolutely NOBODY is stopping you.
YOU HAVE YOUR BELIEFS... enjoy.

It establishes credibility in the scientific community and the general public, but the fact remains: tons of excellent science have miraculously yielded accurate data and valid hypotheses initially to a review panel of one: and that's why you can't condemn any person, scientist or lowly saint, from employing empiricism and forming hypotheses on their own.

Initially. Yes, some scientists work alone, and come up with great ideas, and have great evidence. Super.

BUT if they don't TELL anyone about their great ideas or SHOW their great evidence, then NOBODY WILL KNOW ABOUT THEM.. or care. You want to share your ideas?

Then, I'm afraid you will THEN have to tell us about them and then if we don't BUY IT JUST BECAUSE YOU SAID SO... you might have to PROVE to someone that your idea is TRUE or justified somehow.

Otherwise... you have ONLY made a claim. Bravo for making a claim.

I am stating the obvious, and you keep demanding "peer review" as if nothing can be confirmed to the individual by the individual.

You can only CONFIRM IT TO YOURSELF that way. So, if you want to share your idea.. You will have to step out of yourself, and tell us why we should ALSO believe your idea is true.

That's untrue historically and I'm sure you understand that. To keep mocking a person's observations and conclusions derived from their private spiritual experiences is to go beyond the pointless call for independent review, to where all you are doing is implying that the individual a liar at worst, or at best a self-deluded mystic.

Yes, that's about it. Anyone, including the worst kinds of charlatans can make unverifiable claims. And we KNOW that some people are deluded.

What we DON'T know is that anything supernatural does exist.. because we don't have any EVIDENCE to look at.. or to REVIEW.
We are your peers.. we would like to review your data... No data?.. ok, then, we are DONE.
But feel free to believe it yourself.

Of course I do, if the tests involve "the effectiveness of prayer." The results must be unreliable, because as I pointed out, the scriptures present a laundry list of preconditions that qualify effective prayer, and it is virtually impossible for any human being to judge accurately the presence, absence, or degree of those preconditions by outward observation. We are talking about a spiritual experience that hinges on spiritual preconditions. We are not talking about experiments in natural science.

Then if the RESULTS of prayer have no effect on the natural world, it's another claim that YOUR PEERS cannot review. So, you have convinced yourself. Bravo.

But if you want to SHARE this with your peers, you might want to give us ANY evidence for your claims.
If you say that's impossible, then we simply cannot review your claims.
Your claims have been noted.

How many unsupported claims are we supposed to believe?

How many DO YOU believe?

My analogy was based on a group of friends who like and appreciate Italian culinary goodness. The analogous example is a group of friends who like and appreciate spiritual and moral goodness. And the question is not a matter of subjective judgments within those categories, but of broad objective judgments of generalities (good, or bad):

oh, BROAD objective judgements of GENERALITIES.
Usually, scientific tests are for very detailed and precise judgements on SPECIFIC claims. Vague generalities that are broad will yield vague general results.
You will note that most modern science is VERY specific in detail.

1. Is the Italian food good, or is it bad?
2. Is the Lord good, or is he bad?

The message of religion is not shared much differently than the message of friends communicating about food. "Hey, this is delicious, give it a try."

This is a claim. Hey this is good.. is a claim.
Am I just supposed to believe the claim?

OR.. do I test the claim somehow?

King David similarly recommends to his contemporaries, "O taste and see that the Lord is good." Many things we do in life begin with a personal recommendation from someone we know or someone whose opinion we trust.

Begin.. then what? Then, we have to TEST it.. How do you propose to test something if there IS no way to test it?
We don't test it, and so the claim is unverified.

Now what?
Just believe?

And opinions become less and less subjective as we broaden the scope of our subject.

How do you do that?
Do you use a test of some kind?
May your peers know what this test is?

For example, when you share an opinion that some item of food is good, the word "good" of necessity must first apply to the broadest standards of acceptability: not burnt to a crisp, not salted with wild abandon, not assembled from rancid ingredients, and so on.

Ok, you have some criteria.. Can we TEST for this, or just take your friends' WORD on it?

Food can be tested outside the mouth to determine whether it's burnt, or saturated with salt, or decomposing; but spiritual things, including deities, cannot be tested scientifically except on a personal, private, individual level.

Right.. Food can be tested outside of the individual, spiritual claims not.

Thus it seems ludicrous for someone to say that prayer has been scientifically proven to be ineffective.

The tests were about PEOPLE GETTING BETTER.. we CAN test for that objectively.. using criteria for "getting better"... and "recovering"... DID people get better if they were prayed for?...

People make claims that prayer helps people heal, get better.. recover faster. People PRAY for that kind of thing all the time. So.. many, many people wanted to KNOW if that could be tested. They tried and got very clear results. You can look it up.

Transcendent experiences, or activities in the metaphysical realm, cannot be submitted to the scientific method.

Ok, then.. we can't test them. Now what?
Just believe any transcendent experience as true? .. because we can't test them, they MUST be true?
What if they are false and we can't test them?

How would we KNOW if they are true or false if we can't test them?

A person may give the outward appearance of engaging in some spiritual activity, but the spiritual realm is too far removed from scientific evaluation to allow its activities to be verifiable by simple observation.

Right.. there might be scientific problems the scientists have to face. Maybe they didn't use SIMPLE observation.. You could find out the methods they used, and what their conclusions actually are. People might LIE about praying.. not do it well, be delusional, and so on. I agree, HOW WOULD WE KNOW?

But as for the claims that prayer DOES anything in the real world, that it actually has an EFFECT on the real world.. the results so far.. ( how long has it been claimed? ) ARE NO. Prayer doesn't effect the real world. IF you pray for someone to get better if they are sick, the studies show that IT WONT HAPPEN with any greater frequency than mere chance.

And if you can't verify that a person is truly qualified to pray an effective prayer, and you can't verify that they are indeed praying according to the parameters of effective prayer as outlined in scripture, then you can't presume to test prayer by normal scientific methods.

Of course, YOU know how to pray correctly, and all the others in the studies magically DID NEVER KNOW HOW TO PRAY CORRECTLY.. wow... How you torture your logic to prove your point.

But let's say that ANYONE who takes part in a prayer study is automatically NOT using the correct prayer method according to you, and so.. now what?

If your PEERS cannot verify what you say is true or not.. should they just believe you?
Or.. what?

You make claims for the supernatural, say they cannot be tested in any way and YET you want us to believe your claims are true.
Even though you have NO way for us to verify that claim.

Well, how about NO, I won't just take your word for it.