Why are all theistic claims untestable?

[Justin108]

"God exists"
"The Bible is the word of God"
"Prayer works"
"Miracles happen"
"There is an afterlife"

Why are all theistic claims untestable?

[alexxcJRO]

Do you have a source for that? I haven't been able to find any such evidence. I trust you're not talking about relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, which is evidently not the same thing as an immediate and permanent (at least as of 12 years later) cure after 13 years of illness.

RRMS can go into remission for long periods of time. There are case were people who had 20-35 years in-between exacerbations (attacks).
Symptoms can disappear without meds(Crab’s)/steroids.
Also studies show placebo can have an impact in remission.

https://overcomingms-xedkabm0pslykc.net ... ceboms.pdf
http://www.healthboards.com/boards/mult ... -away.html
http://www.msworld.org/forum/showthread ... -treatment

Maybe via Placebo Jean-Pierre Bély’s medical condition improved after the prayer.
In this video it says that his recovery was not really immediate and total after the prayer: “he recovers tactile sensitivity and movement� … “moreover in the next months his sclerosis is totally eliminated�(time 1:17-20)



Maybe Jean-Pierre Bély is not cured just that his MSRRMS is in remission. Maybe he is in the time between two consecutive exacerbations(attacks).

[bluethread]

Selection bias. Once something is tested it isn't called a theistic claim anymore. Prayer is an example of this. It has been tested and has been shown to have positive physical effects. Therefore, it is called meditation, because, since we have determined it has positive effects, that must be inherent in the activity. No deity required.

There is a difference between prayer and meditation, and you already pointed it out. The physical effects one gets from prayer can also be found in meditation. Evidently, the physical effects of prayer are psychological in nature rather than divine. If it wad divine in nature, meditation would not be effective.

Why not? Has the psychological mechanism been established scientifically, or are you just presuming that the effect must be purely psychological by the process of elimination. That is selection bias. Wouldn't it be more correct to say that we do not know how it works, we just know it works.

Furthermore, prayer is often a request for certain things other than simply inner strength or better health. While prayer has been shown to have health benefits, prayer seems utterly useless when it comes to praying for things one would normally have no control over. If one were to pray for rain in a drought, for example, these prayers can never be shown to be particularly effective.

Now you are narrowing the definition to meet the desired outcome. You exempt the effects of nonspecific prayer, because it can be verified to some degree. Then, you reject the effects of specific prayer when it has another cause, presuming that cause to be the total cause. That is selection bias.

Of the five claims you presented only two of them are directly theistic, i.e. need a deity.

There are nontheistic mystics who make the following claims.

"Prayer works"
"Miracles happen"
"There is an afterlife"

Fine, I'll be more specific

"Praying to Jesus/God works"
"Miracles from Jesus/God happen"
"There is a Christian heaven"

Better?

Well, that is just more selection bias. It narrows the scope to support the argument. The assertion of the OP is that all theistic claims are untestable. This is not true. Theists in general and Christianity in specific make many claims that are testable. It is just that you are choosing those that are not. The crux of the matter is that theism in general and Christianity in specific are philosophies and philosophies are not limited to that which is scientifically verifiable.

One of the fundamental assertions of many theists in general and Christianity in specific is that there is order in the universe. Though this is ultimately not testable, it is a fundamental principle of science. The holy grail of modern science is a unifying theory. That was what Darwin was doing in the area of biology. He saw a randomness in nature that seemed to run contrary to Christian doctrine. He did not reject the concept of order in the universe, but merely proposed an alternative version of order in the universe. So, not all theistic claims are untestable, like all philosophies, some are testable and some are not. Secular humanists just tend to focus on those that are not, when looking at theology, even though they themselves make untestable claims.

Secular humanists generally claim that man is naturally benevolent. Though this is ultimately not testable, because what constitutes benevolence is subjective, there is plenty of scientific evidence that runs counter to nearly every view of benevolence. Life is just too complicated to scientifically verify everything. Philosophy covers all possibilities, not just those that are testable.

[Mithrae]

There's a reason atheists often request limb regeneration specifically. The regeneration of a limb cannot be ambiguous. The case you presented, however, is. Multiple sclerosis has been known to go into remission on its own.

Do you have a source for that? I haven't been able to find any such evidence. I trust you're not talking about relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, which is evidently not the same thing as an immediate and permanent (at least as of 12 years later) cure after 13 years of illness.

http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Multiple-S ... ow/1992100

How can you be sure the man is not in his 12th year of remission? Is there a way to tell when MS has been cured rather than simply in remission? I'm not a medical professional so I don't know the difference, if there is one.

I'm not a medical professional either, so obviously I can't be sure of anything. It was the CMIL's panel of 20+ medical professionals who concluded with a >2/3 majority that the cure was sudden and 'instantaneous' (or rapid enough to satisfy them ), complete and lasting, and not explainable by contemporary medical science. If he'd had Primary Progressive MS to begin with the possibility of remission doesn't even arise; if it had begun as Relapsing-Remitting MS but transitioned into Secondary Progressive MS with his 2+ years of paralysis, again remission might not be a possibility going off some of the information in Alexx's links. Or even if his stage of the disease had admitted the possibility of remission, follow-up tests of the subsequent decade may (for all I know) have been able to show that the disease was completely gone rather than temporarily dormant. While our understanding of MS has presumably progressed since 1998/99, it's worth noting that according to the BBC interview I posted the dissenting votes in the CMIL panel were not based on the idea that it was merely a remission (rather, on the supposition that his illness might have been simply psychological all along).

Of course even if it had been psychological - a stretch, but apparently not impossible according to a least one of the panel members - a man crippled for two years who is suddenly able to walk would still be very much in the same mould as most miraculous healings in the NT. It would still be confirmation of the theist claim that 'miracles' happen.

And that's just one of the 'miracles' there which made it through the exhaustive investigation process.

You are the one who started a thread asserting that such claims are "untestable." I then specifically asked what you meant by that - details which should have been included in the initial claim to begin with, but never mind - and you somewhat vaguely responded. Now it seems that you have forgotten all about that. My primary three questions were:
- Do you mean testable by all scientists at any moment they choose (ie. unconstrained repeatability)?
- Do you mean potentially subject on a case-by-case basis to professional empirical evaluation?
- Do you mean confirmable as a plausible and best hypothesis through empirical and logical analysis?

You snipped out the second question...

I snipped out the second question for a reason. I do not consider a case-by-case study to be a "test" in the sense that the OP was referring to.

However, you did not actually say that at the time... If anything your comments (eg. in response to the third question and regarding confirmation of an alleged cat's existence) suggested precisely the opposite.

And that's in addition to seemingly backing away from your own criterion, hinted at in several posts but explicitly #35, that a remarkable cure could be 'known' to have a religious cause if it "directly followed an action" of religious significance.

I must have forgotten all about correlation not establishing causation. My bad.

You must have... in post #16 and in post #27 and in post #35. Either that or you thought that the 'preceded by prayer' clause was an important caveat against various 'anomalies,' until suddenly it became more inconvenient than useful.

From post #35: "The reason we can identify Jesus' miracles as miracles is because they directly followed an action performed by Jesus. That is how we know that Jesus is the one that caused the miracle to happen. So unless you can point me to a doctor or healer, slapping the sickness out of someone or something to that effect, you cannot call it a miracle. A medical anomaly, yes. But not a miracle."

I've always considered it to be fairly weak reasoning myself - both that the presence of some kind of religious faith with an unusual event proves a 'miracle,' and that the absence of faith proves an unusual event to be purely mundane - I just found the sudden change in stance to be amusing, and probably the strongest example of shifting goalposts so far.

but in response to the first stated that you meant "Not necessarily "at any moment they choose"

Yes, and then I went on to explain that instances, like the effects of the moon on a tide, depend on specific circumstances. So if your test requires certain circumstances... say... that I can only go to the Lourdes shrine and perform the Sacrament of Reconciliation on a Sunday, or in the first two weeks of October, then by all means. Specify your circumstances and we can proceed with the test.

" and of the third said that it "would also suffice, though I do stress the word "confirm""

Yes. And your case study does not confirm that the cure/remission was as a matter of fact due to the Sacrament of Reconciliation at the Lourdes shrine.

It confirms the theist claim that 'miracles' happen.

Again, the criterion of something which literally and absolutely cannot possibly happen 'naturally' is one which you have introduced. Sure, some Christians hold to similar notions, in spite of the kind of 'miracles' described in the NT, but since literally everything has potential ad hoc 'natural' explanations it remains fallacious regardless of whether it is used by folk promoting 'miracles' or folk who are sceptical of them.

As I commented in the Lourdes thread, undeniable, unanimously-acknowledged proof is "virtually impossible to attain in any field outside mathematics and the hard physical sciences (and even then, often only after a matter of decades!). I'm reminded of the fact that only 80-90% of climate scientists acknowledge the dominant human impact on recent warming, for example." So honestly I don't think your shifting goalposts are any kind of attempt to be unfair or anything like that - you're simply trying to zero in on your own personal criteria for what you would accept as falsification of naturalism/proof of 'miracles' or theism.

But I think we can all recognise that intelligent sensible folk are capable of holding quite different, but still reasonable views, and it seems that we have established that at least two of those theistic claims - miracles happening and the existence of a god - can indeed be confirmed to a very reasonable standard. Even if it's not quite the same as the standard which you personally settle on

[1213]

Okay, so given that you are a Christian, and that you are doing God's will, try moving a mountain or two for us please?

Why should I do that?

[William]

[Replying to post 25 by rikuoamero]

Why not? Why not take it literally? It's taking the claims as fairly as possible - if mountains don't move, then the claims are proven false.
Your approach isn't fair, it allows a constant moving of goalposts.

I myself have never taken it literally so that is why not, as far as my take on it goes.

I have always taken it to mean that you can do great things on the tiniest amount of belief in yourself.

Not saying that I have that correct, only that this is how I have understand it as it seems much more logical.

When it comes to the literal interpretation I look for things which humans have done which reflect that saying. What mountains have we moved and what made us believe we could do it? What did we have to create in order to do it? I think faith was part of the recipe at being able to get it done.
Also - we found ways to tunnel through mountains saving us the effort of actually having to move them.

But I would feel it would be really stupid of me demanding someone should move a mountain literally in order to prove to me that they had a tiny amount of faith.

No - I think my understanding of the saying is more sensible. Some peoples 'mountains' may be [example] fear of heights, and having faith in their ability to overcome that fear, and go skydiving [example] is like 'moving a mountain' for them.

Another example is in actually climbing mountains - you have poetical 'moved the mountain' by reaching its summit. You have achieved what you may have once thought was impossible. Again, faith can be part of that recipe.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 25 by rikuoamero]

Why not? Why not take it literally? It's taking the claims as fairly as possible - if mountains don't move, then the claims are proven false.
Your approach isn't fair, it allows a constant moving of goalposts.

I myself have never taken it literally so that is why not, as far as my take on it goes.

I have always taken it to mean that you can do great things on the tiniest amount of belief in yourself.

Not saying that I have that correct, only that this is how I have understand it as it seems much more logical.

When it comes to the literal interpretation I look for things which humans have done which reflect that saying. What mountains have we moved and what made us believe we could do it? What did we have to create in order to do it? I think faith was part of the recipe at being able to get it done.
Also - we found ways to tunnel through mountains saving us the effort of actually having to move them.

But I would feel it would be really stupid of me demanding someone should move a mountain literally in order to prove to me that they had a tiny amount of faith.

No - I think my understanding of the saying is more sensible. Some peoples 'mountains' may be [example] fear of heights, and having faith in their ability to overcome that fear, and go skydiving [example] is like 'moving a mountain' for them.

Another example is in actually climbing mountains - you have poetical 'moved the mountain' by reaching its summit. You have achieved what you may have once thought was impossible. Again, faith can be part of that recipe.

Metaphor, metaphor… What would religious folks do without this figure of speech?!!!

The most beloved and used tool in solving the cognitive dissonance in their heads.

As time goes by and more and more the Bible is rationally examined; more of it metamorphoses into metaphor.

Rarely we see religious folks go on the horrendous journey of explaining the metaphors.

Once proud example of historical truth now many parts of the Bible are just metaphors for some unknown truths/didactic fictions, grand tales told to establish an unknown religious point .

Story of creation once a proud example of historical truth of how God almighty created the universe, earth, and life now just a metaphor for some unknown truth/didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish an unknown religious point .

Story of the flood once a proud example of historical truth of the power of God now just a metaphor for some unknown truth/didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish an unknown religious point .

Story of the tower of Babel once a proud example of historical truth of the power of God now just a metaphor for some unknown truth/didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish an unknown religious point .

Story of the Jonah and the fish
once a proud example of historical truth of the power of God now just a metaphor for some unknown truth/didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish an unknown religious point .

Revelation -metaphor.
Parts of prophecies that contradict reality, are blatantly false -metaphor.
Words of Jesus that contradict reality, are blatantly false -metaphor, allegory.
Tales of magical genetics, talking, donkeys, dragons, leviathan, giants -metaphor, allegory.
Tales of conscious eternal torment -metaphor.

Claims about Christians being able to move mountains; handling poisonous snakes, drink poison without the risk of death; heal the sick when seen as impossible to accomplish -metaphor.

[Justin108]

I'm not a medical professional either, so obviously I can't be sure of anything. It was the CMIL's panel of 20+ medical professionals who concluded with a >2/3 majority that the cure was sudden and 'instantaneous' (or rapid enough to satisfy them ), complete and lasting, and not explainable by contemporary medical science.

So it wasn't unanimous? A third of the medical professionals concluded that it was not a sudden and instantaneous cure?

Of course even if it had been psychological - a stretch, but apparently not impossible according to a least one of the panel members - a man crippled for two years who is suddenly able to walk would still be very much in the same mould as most miraculous healings in the NT. It would still be confirmation of the theist claim that 'miracles' happen.

If it had been psychological, then the fact that he started walking is easily explained. If it had been psychological, then this experience was nothing but a placebo. Not a miracle.

And that's just one of the 'miracles' there which made it through the exhaustive investigation process.

Cool. Since the OP is not about case studies, however, these supposed miracles are irrelevant. Unless it can be tested, that is unless I can go to Lourdes myself accompanied by a sick person and then be expected to heal this sick person, I'm not interested.

I snipped out the second question for a reason. I do not consider a case-by-case study to be a "test" in the sense that the OP was referring to.

However, you did not actually say that at the time...

I apologize for not being clear enough. No, I do not accept case studies as tests for the purposes of this discussion.

I must have forgotten all about correlation not establishing causation. My bad.

You must have...

Agreed.

I've always considered it to be fairly weak reasoning myself - both that the presence of some kind of religious faith with an unusual event proves a 'miracle,' and that the absence of faith proves an unusual event to be purely mundane - I just found the sudden change in stance to be amusing, and probably the strongest example of shifting goalposts so far.

Yes I shifted the goalpost to the factual realization that correlation does not establish causation. My mistake.

but in response to the first stated that you meant "Not necessarily "at any moment they choose"

Yes, and then I went on to explain that instances, like the effects of the moon on a tide, depend on specific circumstances. So if your test requires certain circumstances... say... that I can only go to the Lourdes shrine and perform the Sacrament of Reconciliation on a Sunday, or in the first two weeks of October, then by all means. Specify your circumstances and we can proceed with the test.

" and of the third said that it "would also suffice, though I do stress the word "confirm""

Yes. And your case study does not confirm that the cure/remission was as a matter of fact due to the Sacrament of Reconciliation at the Lourdes shrine.

It confirms the theist claim that 'miracles' happen.

I disagree. Now can we please get back to the topic at hand? Can you perhaps either explain why theistic claims are untestable? Or otherwise, propose a means to test a theistic claim?

and it seems that we have established that at least two of those theistic claims - miracles happening and the existence of a god - can indeed be confirmed to a very reasonable standard.

Are you talking to yourself perhaps? Because I am not agreeing to any of this. When did "we" establish that miracles and god's existence can be confirmed?

Even if it's not quite the same as the standard which you personally settle on

Phrased differently, "we" can agree that your standards for establishing whether miracles and god exist can easily be met. Fortunately, we don't all hold to the same standards.

[Justin108]

There is a difference between prayer and meditation, and you already pointed it out. The physical effects one gets from prayer can also be found in meditation. Evidently, the physical effects of prayer are psychological in nature rather than divine. If it wad divine in nature, meditation would not be effective.

Why not? Has the psychological mechanism been established scientifically, or are you just presuming that the effect must be purely psychological by the process of elimination.

Has the divine mechanism been established scientifically, or are you just presuming that the effect must be divine. That is selection bias. If you don't believe that meditation is purely psychological, then so be it. But unless you can prove that it is divine in nature, then you cannot claim that it is. Unless you can establish a divine element to prayer, we will have to leave it on the list of divine claims that cannot be tested.

Furthermore, prayer is often a request for certain things other than simply inner strength or better health. While prayer has been shown to have health benefits, prayer seems utterly useless when it comes to praying for things one would normally have no control over. If one were to pray for rain in a drought, for example, these prayers can never be shown to be particularly effective.

Now you are narrowing the definition to meet the desired outcome.

I am narrowing it down to remove ambiguity. If someone with cancer prays and goes into remission, the case is ambiguous because we know that cancer can, on its own, go into remission. So did it go into remission because of prayer? Or did it just go into remission because that's just what cancer does sometimes? If a person prays for a limb to grow back, however, there is no ambiguity. There is no "maybe it just grew back because that what limbs do sometimes".

You exempt the effects of nonspecific prayer, because it can be verified to some degree.

How can it be verified? How exactly does one determine when a nonspecific prayer is successful because of the prayer?

Then, you reject the effects of specific prayer when it has another cause, presuming that cause to be the total cause. That is selection bias.

You can call it selection bias all you like. I call it eliminating ambiguity. I don't know if you know much about science, but this is how controlled experiments are normally done.

Of the five claims you presented only two of them are directly theistic, i.e. need a deity.

Fine, I'll be more specific

"Praying to Jesus/God works"
"Miracles from Jesus/God happen"
"There is a Christian heaven"

Better?

Well, that is just more selection bias.

You complain that these claims are not directly theistic, and now that I adjusted the claims to make them directly theistic, you complain about supposed selection bias? What exactly is it that you want?

It narrows the scope to support the argument.

It narrows the scope to more accurately apply to the scope.

The scope is "theistic claims". You pointed out that these are not theistic claims, and so I adjusted them to better fit the scope of theistic claims. The OP is, after all, about theistic claims. So why do you take issue with me referring to theistic claims?

The assertion of the OP is that all theistic claims are untestable. This is not true. Theists in general and Christianity in specific make many claims that are testable.

The term "theistic claim" is admittedly vague. Which is why I specified what I mean by "theistic claim" to William in post 9.

To be more precise, by "theistic claims" I mean exclusively theistic claims. That is, claims only ever made by theists.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 47 by Justin108]

Your OP asserted that all theistic claims are untestable, without any kind of definition or clarification of what you meant by that. After my questioning, you kind of sort of clarified. So examples have been provided showing that at least two of those theistic claims can be tested according to those criteria.

You've shifted the goalposts since then, both in wanting to talk only about your claim of what a 'miracle' should be and in trying to further zero in on confirmation criteria which you feel more comfortable with. That's fine - you're welcome to your opinion. (Well, your conception of a 'miracle' seems to be fallacious in that it would be untestable by definition, since we could always imagine some hypothetical future 'natural' explanation; but I suppose even then you're still welcome to that opinion.)

We can agree, presumably, that intelligent sensible people can hold reasonable differences of opinion on this

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 47 by Justin108]

Your OP asserted that all theistic claims are untestable, without any kind of definition or clarification of what you meant by that. After my questioning, you kind of sort of clarified.

Is "by 'theistic claims' I mean exclusively theistic claims - claims only ever made by theists" not clear enough for you?

So examples have been provided showing that at least two of those theistic claims can be tested according to those criteria.

Which criteria?