An important
part of designing a good experiment is formulating the question that the
experiment will answer. Often this takes
the form of a hypothesis, and a lot of scientists consider the statistically-testable
hypothesis as one of the most, if not the most, critical part of doing
science. A testable hypothesis would be
something like “People who read blogs will raise their IQ by 5 points in a
year.” This would be a hard test to
design, but it could be done. The end
result of such an experiment would be to have results that either support or do
not support that hypothesis, and that “decision” will be made using statistics.
Not every
experiment starts with such a specific hypothesis, but the more specific and
directed you can be in defining your experiment, the more useful the results
will be (usually!). If we’re going to
experiment with God, we’re not going to have a statistically-testable hypothesis,
as I discussed earlier. We only get one
sample and there are way too many variables that we can’t control. That doesn’t mean we should just give up, but
it does mean that we need to carefully consider the question we are addressing
before we start.
I used to
think that THE QUESTION was “What would God have to do to prove Himself to you?” I still think this is a worthwhile question
for people to consider, but I’ve come to realize that it is not a question that
helps us define an experiment with sufficient clarity to be able to proceed and
get the answers we are seeking. But
before we try to develop a better question, let’s first consider the
limitations of “what would God have to do to prove Himself to you?” Or, stating that question another way “Is
there anything that God (or anyone or anything) could do to change your mind to
believing in God’s existence?”
Most people
probably haven’t thought about this question in any serious way and very few
would actually have a specific answer.
I’ll come back to the latter group at the end of this entry, but for
those who haven’t thought about this question in any detail (and for many who
have), the de facto answer is essentially “nothing.” Specifically, there is nothing God could do to prove His existence to these individuals.[1] For these individuals, any shocking,
mind-bending, or even miraculous event will not
be attributed to God – it will be attributed to nature for the simple fact that
these individuals are convinced that nature is the only thing there is. And, in point of fact, this is how science must be conducted. Scientists have to assume that what they are measuring is a consistent and
predictable natural phenomenon, not a supernatural miracle. But science can’t rule out the supernatural –
it has to start with that assumption from the beginning. It does seem pretty safe to say that if there
is anything beyond the natural, it doesn’t mess with nature very often! Otherwise, science could never work.
So, science has to assume there is not a God interfering with
nature…but scientists do not have to
make that same assumption. This is the
first issue that we have to settle. If
the scientist (or anyone else, for that matter) is not willing or able to
separate the principles of science from their own personal lives, then the
possibility of a spiritual experiment stops right there and we can go no
further. If there is a God out there,
these individuals have already locked and bolted the door and God has no
further access to them. I know that it
seems ridiculous to claim that there is an all-powerful God on one hand, yet
claim that He is prevented from entering someone’s life by a surely
less-than-all-powerful human being. But
this is a deep theological truth in Christian beliefs. It is an issue that has been discussed for at
least two millennia and we will certainly not be able to explore it here. For now, we will simply have to look at it
from the human perspective. The person
who says “all that exists is natural; there is no supernatural and there is
nothing that I might experience that will ever change my mind” is in a fixed,
closed state. If they are right, they
are fine. If they are wrong, they are in
the worst situation possible. There is
no more to be said about these individuals[2]
except that it would be really nice if they stopped claiming that they are
“open-minded” and “only believe the evidence”, because that is clearly not the
case.
In the realm of science, we’re not
supposed to be closed-minded. For
example, if a scientist said “I’m so convinced of my theory that no amount of
evidence would ever suffice to change my conviction”, that would not be considered
a good scientific position. Of course
that happens all the time in science, because scientists are human. But every theory in science is supposed to be
“disprovable”. I think a good scientist
should be able to outline the experiment and experimental results that would
disprove the theory they are putting forward.
That’s hard to do sometimes. It’s
also human nature to hate being wrong, and that complicates the whole matter. I have to admit, though, that the question we
are dealing with here, about God proving Himself, is outside the realm of
science anyway, so I’m not sure the standard rules of scientific questioning
apply. Personally I can’t blame anyone
for being closed-minded on this issue.[3] Truly being open-minded is very unsettling
for us humans – like a hermit crab outside of its shell! So, if you’re closed-minded, just admit it! And I’m not just talking about scientists here
– no one achieves the heights of closed-mindedness more completely than someone
convinced of their own religious faith! In
fact, in order to really experience the full force of belief, it is necessary to become closed-minded. My point here is that it is useful for us to
recognize our own closed-mindedness.
However, if you want to conduct our experiment, you’ll have to unbolt
and unlock the door first.
As I mentioned at the start of this
entry, there are a few people who have a ready answer for the question about
God proving Himself. They have considered
the question and defined a specific event or task that God must do to prove
Himself to them. And, I guess, most of
them are still waiting for an answer! A
lot of times the answer that people give to this question is given a bit
flippantly, and that is not at all appropriate for a question of this magnitude. For example, it could be an answer like “I
want God to appear before me, sing the Hallelujah chorus, and then hand me a
winning lottery ticket.” That’s a
creative answer, but probably not given very seriously and certainly not well
though-out enough. I’d like to get into
the details in the future, but for now I will just say that the main problem with
most “answers” to the question, including the example I gave, is that there are
specific characteristics of God that are implied in the answer. That’s ok as long as the original question is
re-framed with those specifics in mind. The
answer given in my example implies a God who cares about the individual (“gives
a lottery ticket”). It implies a God who
is visible and, I presume, still looks like His picture on the Sistine Chapel
despite having aged a few hundred years[4] (“God
to appear”). It implies a God who is a
fan of Handel and has some musical talent.
Most importantly is implies a God who is willing to be told what to do
by a measly little human! So, in this
case, the question is better framed as “What would a caring, classical-music
loving, singing, milktoast God have to do to prove Himself to me?” That’s the experiment being conducted in that
case. And, I’m guessing, the answer is
“there isn’t one”! But is that really
the question we wanted answered?
I think I’m going to have to come
back to this whole issue down the road.
I hope that this entry at least gets you to think about this question
with a certain degree of seriousness. In
the next entry on this topic, we’ll discuss a more well-defined question to
help design our spiritual experiment.
Better get your test tubes ready!
[1]
Does this mean that these individuals are more powerful than God? No – but that’s really a theological question
that will have to be addressed separately.
I try to keep these entries reasonably short, but that means there are
some key issues that I have to kick down the road and address in some future
entry.
[2]
Actually, there might be more to be said:
how hard do you want to make God work to get you to open your mind? What if He wants you to cry “uncle”?
[3]
A plausible reason for being closed-minded about the existence of a spiritual
world is that you have determined that any such belief “offends the principles
of reason”, as described by Pascal (see favorite Quote #3http://www.kevinlloydkilgore.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-favorite-quotes-entry-3.html). As I said in that entry, I think that is a
good criterion for excluding certain ideas.
Just be certain that you’ve drawn your conclusions by carefully
considering what is unreasonable, and
not because it is unlikeable or disagreeable! Recognizing the difference is critical here.
[4]
Seriously! I have a hard time
recognizing old classmates after only 30 years of aging!
No comments:
Post a Comment