Pax Nortona – A Blog by Joel Sax
From the Land of the Lost Blunderbuss
Home - Spirituality and Being - Myths & Mysticism - Without Opinions
Without Opinions
Posted on December 22, 2004 in Myths & Mysticism Reading Thinking
The latest issue of Skeptic appeared on the magazine racks this week. Two articles deserve special note: first, a faith healer in France agreed to test his claimed abilities for a “therapeutic touch” in the presence of reputable scientists. . (Skeptical Inquirer also had an article on the experiment.) Before the experiment took place, Mr. Z met with the scientists to define the testing protocol. Most importantly, he understood and agreed that he would have to score a result of 65% or better to prove that he wasn’t just guessing.
Mr. Z failed to prove the existence of his powers. What is remarkable is that unlike many practitioners of the faux arts and pseudosciences, he accepted the results. Skeptic did not reveal his name or allow his picture to appear unblurred in the magazine as a courtesy to him. All praised him for his honesty and sincerity. As well they should.
The other item worth mentioning is a letter to the editor which appears on page 20:
In his letter to the Forum in SKEPTIC Vol 11, No. 1, “Thanks from a Christian,” home schooler Scott Carrell reveals his incompetence to teach science. He does not understand that science, seeking only to discover the most parsimonious explanations for observations carefully and accurately made, is neutral in regard to the existence of God. So he misinforms his children every time he “reminds” them that science is built upon the foundation: “THERE IS NO GOD.” I challenge him to find any scientific paper published in a reputable refereed journal that includes this conclusion among either its assumptions or its conclusions. Of course, this does not mean that the scientific worldview is compatible with all of the stories that one may hear about God, such as that He created the entire universe and all the creatures in it during a single week a few thousand years ago.
John G. Fletcher, Livermore, CA
jgms@earthlink.net
Fletcher joins the anvil chorus that I, myself, have contributed to: Clank clank. Science is limited to what can be sensed. Clank clank. It cannot prove the existence of God. Clank clank. It cannot disprove the existence of God.
As I have said before, I reject Creationism because it forces me to lie about the fossil record and the scientific method. When I took my baptismal vows and when I repeated them at my confirmation, a key line was to reject Satan and all his works. I believe most sincerely that creationism functions as a way of undermining the way of Christ by putting a material object over the discoveries and expanding understandings of the human spirit. Those who composed the Genesis account may have done so in all sincerity (Joseph Campbell used to say that the conflict isn’t between science and religion but between the science of the 20th century AD and the science of the 15th century BC), but those who insist in the light of fossil evidence that the Bible is the undeniable word of God (a claim the book itself refutes at a few points!) choose to bear false witness. If I must continue to reject evil, then I am compelled to reject untruth.
It has never been said by me that science is the last word on existence. It can only speak about what can be sensed. At this time, physicists struggling with the Pioneer Anomaly realize that some of their assumptions about the nature of space may be wrong. Did Newton, Einstein, and Heisenberg lie? No, they constructed their understandings of the universe as well as they could given the knowledge that came before them and the instruments available to them at the time. They were honest men.
Those who are not honest include those who used their political clout to push their anti-science/anti-truth agenda at Grand Canyon National Park. They include those who attempt to get “equal time” for science and religion. The Founding Fathers were men of conscience: these usurpers of freedom of religion are mere promoters and carnival sideshowmen who read the Bible with a mind for finding loopholes to get out of the uncomfortable demands made by our increasing awareness of the universe, most prominent among them being that we are not the end of a Creation but a part of an ongoing process that is not entirely understood. How arrogant of them to think of God in our image and to believe that we, mere specks on the planet, can comprehend the greater pattern of chaos and order — the swirl and stretch of the stars inside the universe!
Mr. Z stands as a model for our time. We must agree to test our claims when they are testable. If they fail, then we are wrong and that is nothing to be ashamed of. What should be a matter for self-reproach is the stubborn insistance that we are persecuted simply because we ourselves have shown that we do not faithfully reproduce the workings of the universe as it is. Mr. Z was tested in the crucible of science. But as for his honesty, he was not found wanting.
