Atheism and the abuse of the scientific method

A curious phenomenon I've noticed when seeing athiest arguments against the existence of God. Specifically one would hear the phrase "There is no evidence for the existence of God." The Chrisitian apologist would then go on to offer events such as miracles and such, and go on back and forth and such.



The problem I've always had with this is that both sides engage in an abuse of the scientific method. In order to see the problem let's review the scientific method.



1. A hypothesis is formed concerning a property of the universe.

2. An experiment is constructed based on the hypothesis to test said hypothesis.

3. A result is expected. If the experiment's results match the expected result, the hypothesis is proven.

4. The experiment is performed.



To illustrate by way of example, consider the following:



1. I propose a force exists, called "grabity", that pulls everything down toward the ground.

2. To test such a theory I will hold a ball above the ground. I will then remove my hand from beetween the ball and the ground.

3. If my theory is correct, the ball will "fall" toward the ground.

4. I drop the ball, and sure enough, the ball "falls" to the ground.



The problem with the dialogue mentioned in the first paragraph is that steps 2 and 3 are never really defined. When asked "What are you looking for" when it comes to evidence this is often accused as being a dodge. It is not. It is simply the correct progression of establishing a scientific test for the existence of God.

I think at some level there is a recognition that the scientific method is the wrong tool for the job. A process to test for the properties of the physical universe being used to determine the existence of an immaterial being is like using a metal detector to find your socks. And at some level I think the atheists recognize this but fail to come to grips with it.

Sotomayor Saga

The nomiation and installment of Sotomayor appears to be all but certain. Her confirmation hearings have pretty much followed normal, and aside from her having a complete meltdown it looks like she will become a Supreme Court justice.

The net effect basically is that she is replacing a liberal and abortion supporter on the court. Therefore in the numbers game the pro-life movement hasn't lost any ground. She may be more supportive of abortion than her predecessor, but this doesn't matter much in the long run I believe.

This is not to say that this isn't a travesty. Abortion is such an abhorent crime that I have trouble believing that we even have to have a discussion about why it should be illegal. My only point is that those who fight for the lives of the unborn seem to have resigned themselves and are saving for the next fight, which I think is wise.

A minor point. I have often heard Obama and Sotomayor referred to as "baby-killers." I think this is a mistake. Neither of them have actually forced the death of unborn children. They simply fight to allow mothers to slaughter their children. They are not the ones killing children. It is the average American citizen who is doing the killing. Call a spade a spade, but make sure the label applies.

Writing as a chore

What I find most difficult about writing is that my mind seems to stray when I finally have time to write. I spend all day trying to force myself to find time to write down what I've thought about during the day. But then when I actually succeed in finding time I have nothing to say.

I have found in my writing project that it has been very difficult to put together the first story since there are a variety of goals that have to be accomplished.

1. Describing the world
2. Introducing the characters
3. Reveal a main plot for the first story
4. Foreshadowing the events to come

The biggest challenge in these goals is not accomplishing them (although each goal has unique challenges) but making sure that one goal does not take away from the others. The proper balance is necessary.

I have no idea if my story is worth writing. But it has been stuck in my head for years now. I hope to have the work done sometime before I die. :-).

I try to write for the greater glory of God. I hope and pray that my writing does some good. I have no idea if it is worth anything. But when something sits in your head for years on end, it is a good idea to at least try to get it on paper.

Douglas Kemic picked as Ambassador

Douglas Kmiec, the "controversial" pro life supporter of Barack Obama has recently been appointed to the position of Ambassador to Malta.

I have attempted to defend his position in the spirit of charity as required by my Faith. His position has always seemed to me to be one of resignation to the current pro-death culture with regard to abortion, and as such to meet it on its terms in order to slow down the decay. His advocacy for working with the current administration to "reduce abortions" IMO is one of defeat, yet I tried to take his statements at face value.

His recent appointment however throws that whole analysis into turmoil. Now it appears that he may have simply sold us Obama in order to get a cushy Ambassadorship. (No idea if Malta fits this category). I hope for the sake of his soul this is not the case.

My initial thought is that he should reject the post. But given that the announcement has been made it is all but done.