God Cannot Be Demonstrated in This Life

I know I'm not moving towards the of the question with the most direct or swift velocity, but lets return...

What is the difference between believing that a mediacal team can save your life with a heart that's claimed to exist and believing that religion can save your life through a god that's claimed to exist?

Here are some thoughts on the matter:

The claim that a heart exists and can be successfully transplanted has been, and is able to be, proven. While the question of whether or not a specific heart exists for your transplant remains, there is no such question regarding the existence of hearts in general. The same cannot be said for God. To date, as far as I know, there has been no proof that god exists, and the proposition that he exists is not demonstratable. Since the existence of God is beyond scientific test or confirmation, it is somewhat unique as a claim. This fact places the question of the existence of God in the same category as such questions as the existence of Santa Clause, Zeus, or the Spagetti Monster. It does not place the question of the existence of God along side questions like "does the earth circle the sun?" or "is there a north pole?" I tend to think that things which are worthy of belief are things which don't just make claims, but are capable of being confirmed or demonstrated in this life.

Its this last statement that I'll have to challenge further, since at this point its the closest thing to an answer to the big question I've come up with.

Religion's "Truth"

If someone never knew of religion and one day walked into a Catholic church during service, the experience in many fundamental ways would not be very different from walking into a doctor's office located on a medical complex. She would find a well ordered staff, people of great authority and knowledge, texts which are strictly adhered to, an ornate building of intricate and costly design, and various plaques or paintings denoting authenticity. Upon entering this environment, she would undoubtedly claim that it is a very professionally run, financially successful establishment. Using reason, the visitor would begin forming a positive judgement of the credibility of the claims that institution made.

A little further investigation would yield information regarding a well ordered and adhered-to hierarchy as well as the vastness and depth of the church's priestly schools. Clearly, the church approaches its services carefully and takes its claims seriously. In addition, it could be noted that no fee is required of those who enter the church. At the most, small notes are offered up as a means to support the church's activities, but no outrageous sums are demanded from the congregation. Apparantly, becoming rich is not a motive for the priests and nuns of the church. For the visitor, these observations could only serve to further convince her of the church's authenticity and truth.

Yet more research into the religious institution's history would produce information regarding its history dating back nearly 2 thousand years. Surely an organization that old would be founded upon undeniable truths, right? Common sense might compel one to think that if a group was founded on lies that the group would not long survive-that reason would ultimately reveal falsity of its claims.

Finally, the visitor to the Catholic Church service would witness something that she could never hope to see at a doctor's office. The church would be full of hundreds of people who apparantly believe the claims of the church. If asked, most of these people would profess the "truth" unflinchingly, and they'd do so with more conviction than one normally hears regarding even the most established facts. This is the sort of testimonial a doctor or scientist will never receive. At best, one may only hope to talk to a few past patients or flip through some files.

So, we find that reason seems to support the notion that there is a great deal of truth behind the claim that god exists and that life continues after death.

I'll note that reason is not logic. Logic is science. If properly applied, it will lead only to truth, like 2+2=4. Reason on the other hand is the practice of intelligence with no limits other than those imposed by the person who is able to infuse the most logic into his/her argument. Reason is free form intelligence. How do we infuse more logic into our search for truth?

This and more to come...

The Search for a Universal Test

continued...

To evaluate the credibility of each statement, you could start by asking to see each claimants credentials. Does either possess evidence of extensive training and experience in their areas of expertise? You'd hope to find diplomas from credible schools, genuine buisness liscenses, or various certificates of accomplishment residing in the office of both the heart surgeon and the jelly fish biologist.

But how could the mere presence of a diploma or certification convince you of the paper's authenticity and weight? If these qualities were not readily apparant to you based upon your own knowledge of the institution of origin, then authenticity could be established through research. Also, if you wanted to rule out the possibility that the diploma is a fake, you could contact someone from the school and seek confirmation of the doctor's schooling.

Depending upon your level of suspicion or distrust, you may want to seek reassurance of the expert's abilities beyond his or her's ability to meet the requirements of graduation. In this case, you'd ask to see a record of the claimant's past success. Speaking to a number of people who've been treated by the claimant would greatly bolster the expert's claims. The mere fact that many others were still alive after having been in your same condition would certainly increase your trust in the expert. The details which these people could provide would be of great interest to you as well. What was their experience like with the claimant? Do they offer evidence that it was the treatment that cured them as opposed to any other possible factors?

Apart from determining if the claimant truly had extensive education, experience, and success in the practice of treating heart disease, observing the environment in which she operates could give some indication of the expert's level of professionalism. Cleanliness and order are thought to be signs of a well run operation. The condition and size of one's staff can also correlate to the effectiveness and success of one's practice. Likewise, the location of the office, both in quality and relation to other reputable businesses or institutions, could be a sign of the claimant's professionalism.

In short, you must make an intelligent decision regarding the credibility and truthfullness of the claimaint based upon all the facts available to you.

Yet in the end, after all of the conditions around the claim are assessed, and all signs point to the truth behind the claimant's statement, are you not still relying upon some measure of faith when you choose to believe her? As you're boarding the plane which will take you to the Phillipines where you will undergo a heart transplant, do you really know that a team of surgeons awaits with your new heart? Perhaps if you had a video conference with a surgeon holding the heart while standing in front of a famous Phillipino monument you might then convince yourself that you know that what you were told is true. But a part of what you were told is that the heart will save your life. Can you know that its true when its still possible that the doctor lied to you about the heart's compatibility with your body. Can you know its true when its possible that the surgeons really don't know what they're doing. And can you know its true when its possible that any number of things could go wrong and you'd die instead of live-which is the exact opposite of what was claimed.

So we must ask, "what is the difference between unreasonable, inadequate evidence for belief and evidence justifying belief?"

Before moving on with our analysis, I'll share a few thoughts:

It seems as though faith is always involved in belief. Or, as I would prefer phrasing things, we can never be 100% certain that something is true other than, perhaps, the feelings we feel. There is always the possiblity that something is not as it seems. The existence of faith as a concept and the inability to completely rid ourselves of alternative possibility are both confirmation of agnosticism. When faced with the inability to truly know, we either choose to believe (which is faith) or we choose not to believe (which is agnostiscm. Choosing to take action or become convicted should be a rather complicated process which takes into account the body of evidence which supports the key proposition on which our action or inaction is based. While I think that belief can be a useful word in normal, everyday conversation, its implication that something is 100% certain ultimately makes it a false word, or a false concept. Faith on the other hand is something we utilize. However, religion glorifies and encourages faith when it something that should only be condemned. Some scant measure of faith cannot be avoided in life, but our express goal should be to limit it in our decisions and convictions to the utmost degree. The less faith we allow ourselves, the better our decisions, and the better our lives. Hope, on the other hand, being a very different and distinct concept, is of significant value.

Now taking a look at the primary question above, we see that it is a question of "reasonableness" just as the courts have created various "tests" for bringing some measure of science and consistency to jurisprudence. We've all heard of the test "beyond a reasonable doubt" used in criminal cases. In civil cases the standards of "proof" are even less stringent. In the institutions most dedicated to reason and the establishment of truth, methods have been employed that fall far short of requiring real proof. The rarity of proof forces our courts to rely on reason much of the time. As Benjamin Franklin warned and OJ's trial demonstrated, reason can be construed to bolster almost any claim. So reason is not perfect. But besides science, our senses, and a little hope, its the only thing we can live by.

When it comes to our jelly fish analogy we might ask whether or not its reasonable to believe that a jellyfish in the amazon rainforest can effectively kill cancer cells. Are there elements to the statement that are widely considered untrue or odd? Unfortunately, the answers to this question are contingent upon the beliefs/experiences of society. In the case of religion, the bias and preconceived notions of believers, a majority of Americans, would allow religious belief to pass multiple tests of reasonableness. A test based solely upon common sense/common perception/norms/majority belief is inadequate, as I think we've understood all along.

To help draw the line between unreasonable belief and reasonable belief we can ask another question:

What are the differences between the belief that a medical team has a heart that can save your life and the belief that church has a god that can save your soul?

The answer and more to come...