A Proposed Scientific Test For the Truth of Christianity
Ask some non-believing outsiders what they think of the so-called evidence for Christianity. Ask, oh, let's see where should I start, Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists, Christian Scientists, witch doctors...
Calculate the conversion rates and get back to me. But there's more to it:
Don't forget that when you attempt to convert them you present a balanced view of church history and theological disputes, okay? Or, do this, give them a copy of an apologetics book along with mine and tell prospects to decide after reading them, okay? Ask them to study it out by reading both sides before choosing, which is the fair way isn't it?
THEN calculate the conversion rates and get back to me.
THAT would be as fair of a test as I can measure scientifically.
Where is the Templeton foundation grant money when you really need it?
Calculate the conversion rates and get back to me. But there's more to it:
Don't forget that when you attempt to convert them you present a balanced view of church history and theological disputes, okay? Or, do this, give them a copy of an apologetics book along with mine and tell prospects to decide after reading them, okay? Ask them to study it out by reading both sides before choosing, which is the fair way isn't it?
THEN calculate the conversion rates and get back to me.
THAT would be as fair of a test as I can measure scientifically.
Where is the Templeton foundation grant money when you really need it?
19 comments:
I think this would more test the relate-ability of Christianity to outsiders than it would the truth per se, but that being said it is an excellent way of showing that Christianity isn't "obviously true," which is the way it is constantly presented in our culture.
You could do a similar test with a basic book on quantum mechanics vs The Secret, to most people, The Secret might seem more "innately true," or more able to pass the "gut check test," but that doesn't make it true.
But, I will also say that a religion which claims to be based on God's word, and be the way to heaven, should probably be a bit more intuitive than quantum mechanics.
~Rhaco
By the way, i came across an offer for free science based DVDs and thought I'd share it with everyone. One is an evolution primer with Ken Miller.
Obviously, that wouldn't be a test for truth so much as a test of what kinds of memes are amenable to human psychology. The truth is not a democracy.
Rhaco makes a good point.
Some scientific conclusions, like quantum mechanics, are very counterintuitive, but we must believe them because the evidence is incontrovertible.
When they're pressed into the corner, they end up attributing the miracles of our faith to demonic powers or witchcraft: which might work just fine for them, but not so much for you..
Wow, Lvka; you just busted my Irony Meter.
I hate to break it to you, but none of the so-called "miracles" of your religion have been substantiated; not one(same thing goes for Islam, Voodoo, the various Hindu religions, and so on...). Every time a Muslim talks to a Christian about a healing or a near-death-experience(N.D.E.) where someone talked to Muhammad, you guys say that it's either a hoax or the person saw a demon disguised as Muhammad. Likewise, when you guys try to convince a Muslim or Hindu of the ridiculous fairy tales in your religion, they'll say that it's fakery, witchcraft, demonic possession/influence, etc.
It's all bogus.
Mr Loftus, have you seen this post on pharyngula on the deranged DM:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/dennis_markuze_exposed.php#comments
Yes: people of other religions do not necessarily dismiss a miracle on naturalistic grounds: that's what I was saying. They do believe many of them to be indeed super-natural, but not from God. It's a whole different thing then saying they are hoaxes: because they are not. -- So John's idea falls flat.
Here are some Hindu miracles which we believe to be demonic in nature, for instance.
You also mentioned near-death experiences: watch at least the first 15-20 minutes of this tv-documentary, and tell me if you honestly think those people are lying.
John, why are you allowing trolls like Lvka and Marcus in here?
Is it not obvious from the experience we've had with them
already that they are pursuing no goals other than aggravating those who dare to challenge the dogma?
I understand that in a way they may be good for boosting the traffic. But I'd suggest that you should also take into consideration that dealing with full time web trolls may not be the goal of those who have read or are going to read your book and wish to participate in discussions.
Lvka just remember “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”
When a miracle passes that test, I'll be glad to have the discussion of "whether it was demonic or not."
Hume was a badass.
~Rhaco
Oh, and you are setting up a false dichotomy, implying that the answer is either "lying or God." That is absurd, near death experiences are a product of the processes of the brain shutting down, nothing more.
Sorry.
~Rhaco
3g.nursing, have you read my comment policy by clicking on the link just above the place where you write a comment?
Which policy are these Christians violating?
You do not have to respond to them, but then I don't like banning people just because I disagree with them either. It's a hard call to make and I would rather err on charity.
Keep in mind two things: 1) People walk away from their faith so they may do so someday because of what they read here on a daily basis; 2) Until then they are cannon fodder to help us show to other readers how bad the case for Christianity really is.
I do appreciate all of my supporters who help me argue against them, you included.
John, why not apply for Templeton funding? One of the things they encourage in addition to science-religion things is a free market competitive approach to religion. Your proposed experiment ties into both. If you have the time and interest to actually undertake the research and report on it, or put a team together to do so, then why not apply? It couldn't hurt - except maybe your reputation in the eyes of some science bloggers! :-)
James, I actually came up with this today so it's something new. As the day went on I actually was thinking about it. We'll see if I can propose such a test--something like it anyway.
This is a fascinating idea. You'd have to get an audience that would commit to reading several books over a length of time.
Perhaps a good base for your study would be university students in different countries. University students are at an age where they are most likely to change their beliefs, and are just learning to be independent from what their parents taught them. You'd also be dealing with educated people, so they could look at the arguments more objectively.
Hope it happens!
Uh, Lvka? You might want to cut down on that overwhelming gullibility of yours. First off, how do you know that that "demonic" "miracle" actually took place? Do you literally believe everything that cheesy Christian websites tell you? And secondly, I've seen and heard many N.D.E.s in my time, and all the evidence we have on the subject proves nothing except that people who experience NDE have a tendency to see whatever they want to see; so it's more than a little moronic to to try and use something so vague to justify your religious views. Guess what? There are thousands of Muslims who claim to have spoken with Muhammad, and thousands more of Hindus who claim to have met Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, and the rest of the gang. There's even Buddhists who claim to have met Devas, Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas.
Got any more "miracles" for us?
this like of reasoning is completely self defeating!! the test for truth is whether someone believes its true after being presented with evidence?
by this standard everyone who has had any interaction from an apologetic from both theism and atheism, which ever side of the fence they land is the true side and is evidence the other side is false.
this also assumes a relavtivist view of what it means for something to be true. an idea which is also self defeating. way to go!
My point was that the Priests and Pharisees didn't say: "Oh, well, we're sure there must be some kind of rational explanation for His miracles"; rather they said: "With the lord of demons does He cast out devils". -- and that's one very significant aspect that John didn't take into consideration in the idea he expressed in this post.
"Why should we, atheists, believe in the miracles of a certain faith when not even religious people of other faiths believe in them?" -- that was John's honest question.
"Because you possess only a single reason for not doing that, whereas religious people of other faiths have more than that one specific reason", was my logical & obvious answer to his question.
So atheists should believe in this crud because John Loftus said we have to...?
Let's look at what you're saying, shall we? Atheists have more than one reason, my friend; why should they accept or believe in the miracles of one faith, when
A) There is absolutely zero evidence supporting any of these "miracles",
B) Most other religions make identical, or similar claims,
C) Other religions have no hard proof either,
D) None of the various faiths are willing to accept any of the other religions "miracles" as valid,
E) Therefore, freethinkers like myself have multiple, solid, rational reasons to reject all of this nonsense as being invalid.
Also, Mr. Loftus did not say that atheists only have one reason not to accept this garbage, he only gave us *one* in this post. Clearly he should have elaborated... but, maybe some theists would have taken his statements waaaay out of context nonetheless.
John;
No, contrary to the psychobabble you spewed on this page, the test for truth is evaluating the claim, evaluating the evidence, and coming to the most logical conclusion possible, based on the conditions.
I examined the so-called evidence Lvka presented me with, and using logic, concluded that it was cheap Christian propaganda(as it most obviously was), and therefore rejected it.
"This like of reasoning is completely self-defeating!!"
I agree. Judging from your comment, the sad, repetitive, mentally masturbatory wishful thinking that passes as "reasoning" with apologists(blindly accept anything that validates Christianity, reject everything that doesn't) explains why Christian doctrine is asinine to the brink of stupidity, and why the whole religion has become so outdated and stagnant. It'd be nice if you guys would stop trying to push your dogma on everyone else, but with a mindset like that, who can blame you?
How can you ask a person who is not spiritually regerated for evidence about a relationship that they do not experience?
Question everything.
IF true Christianity is a personal relationship which involves spiritual birth and regeneration THEN the spiritual aspect of this can not be ignored. It also draws attention to the miracle of salvation itself.
If the road to spiritual regeneration is paved with humility toward a Holy and Infinite Creator Whom you pray to as a Loving Heavenly Father, THEN conversion rates are completely meaningless because they don't address "relationships" with such Holy Creator.
Post a Comment