How does a scientist report the calving of an iceberg? Is that anecdotal?
Choosing not to believe honestly reported objective empirical evidence does not invalidate it.
They report replicable and verifiable measurements, not stories.
2 Likes
I donât think you understand the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence.
1 Like
em¡pir¡i¡cal
/ÉmËpirik(É)l/
adjective
- based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
So how do I verify or observe for myself what happened in any of those anecdotes?
More to the point, where are the statistical analyses? Where is the comparison between an experimental and control group? What would we expect to observe from pure randomness, and where are the analyses backing this conclusion?
Very recently a child in my extended family was diagnosed with bone cancer. He is just 2 years old, and if he survives the 9 months of repeated chemo and radiation he will probably never walk normally due to the amount of damage the radiation is going to cause. His parents are very devout Christians, and they are praying everyday for a good outcome, but I canât help but think that if God does exist then God just let this happen when he could have stopped it. Why pray to the very being that could have stopped your kid from getting cancer but chose not to?
If we looked at a statistical comparison between medical outcomes for Christians and atheists would you expect to see a strong statistical difference? Do all Christians have their cancer cured if they pray to have it cured? If not, why not?
3 Likes
How do you observe for yourself an iceberg calving or ninety-seven million other objective events reported by scientists? (Maggie was a scientist, please recall.) You donât. You trust the honest accounts recorded.
Youâre playing the theodicy card again, I see. Sorry, but it doesnât trump nor negate other realities.
And speaking of statistics (and ingenuousness* elsewhere), winning five lotteries in a day in the order that the tickets were bought doesnât give you a clue that something was rigged. Not just one-off coincidences, but whole sets and series of otherwise discrete and disparate events, connected only by the mutual meaning infused. And not just one series, but multiple, and not just one personâs. Do you remember George MĂźller? I can post links to him again. There was Rich Stearns, of course, and my nephrectomy account (btw, I did not pray to have my cancer cured). I would be interested to see if you could provide comparable sets of concatenated series of events that were first person accounts and likewise recent.
*Call it gullible, if you like, but the antonym is disingenuous. I would prefer the former label for myself.
I can accept that in life Christians suffer the trials of life that are common to all, and feel that that is just part of what it is to live under the laws of physics and probability. It bothers me more when someone prays that WalMart will have the Pound Puppy in stock that their grandkid wants for Christmas, and credits God when one is on the shelf, yet that child who is suffering continues to suffer. It both trivializes the suffering and trivializes God.
8 Likes
Satellite photos, before and after.
All scientific papers have a methods section which allows you to redo their work. You should be able to replicate their results if you follow their methods.
Why not?
Your claim is that these events could not happen if God did not exist. Thatâs the claim you need to support.
That would be your job if in fact you are pursuing empirical evidence. You would need to show that such events only take place for those who believe in and trust God and not for those who do not believe. You need a control.
If we are talking about anecdotal evidence that you find compelling from a faith perspective, then I have no argument. I feel no need to tell people what they should or shouldnât believe through faith. Where I do find disagreement is when someone claims to be presenting empirical evidence which has standards that must be met.
2 Likes
Thatâs the part I donât understand. Some people seem to be saying that God intervenes in the laws of physics and probability to do good things for them.
Football players thanking God for answering their prayers after a close win also comes to mind, especially this time of year. Makes me wonder if the other team just didnât pray as hard as the winning team. 
4 Likes
To begin with, I think you are mistaking that I am try to say that Godâs existence is scientifically provable. Iâm not, and it is not. This has been discussed before: Why There is No Proof of God
What I am saying, however, and as I said there, that there is credible empirical evidence for his providential interventions in his childrenâs lives.
Um⌠
It allows you to. And you do that for all the scientific papers you read? No, you trust. We are talking about something similar to a forensic M.O., something that is a consistent pattern, something that the Perpetrator does that the observer does not replicate nor want to or try to.
Again, I am claiming that the events are consistent with a God who sovereignly and providentially intervenes in his childrenâs lives. Those interventions are not always what the child wants. Rich Stearns did not want or ask for what he was compelled to believe and act upon. That sequence is absolutely absurd without God, if you would care to reread it. Again, I did not ask to have my cancer cured and it was very cool to see all the timings and placings orchestrated the way they were, regardless, even if it hadnât been. Iâm glad for the way it turned out, especially for my wifeâs sake, but if it had metastasized and progressed to stage 4, it is more important to die well than easily, calmly professing my Lordâs sovereignty and be welcomed into his arms.
Maybe because the kingdom of heaven is not all about a pain-free existence and comfortable life in this world, not that Christians and everyone else who can should not work at alleviating pain and suffering and ameliorating conditions for others. Francis Collins comes to mind.
No, I donât, because I am not claiming scientific proof, just good evidence (kind of like big bang cosmology points to something beyond time and space). I would be glad to let you volunteer, if youâd like, but it would be better to have you become a child of the King first, and my brother.
It bothers me more when that same kid prays day and night for his suffering to end . Things seems to be going good with his therapy and the family attributes it to God
And then all of a sudden the child dies . God which just did a miracle in its familys eyes just reversed it the next moment. Help never came. They just thought it did.
Leonard Cohen summed it up pretty well in just one verse in his song âYou want it darkerâ. In that verse he says
âA million candles burning for the help that never cameâ
Pretty much sums up the whole notiom of it. Desperate people do desperate things. Christians are humans as well. Instead of relying on themselves as hard as it is they look for something someone to help them . Everyone does that. Ive done it. They are praying and hoping that God would intervene in some way or another. If the outcome is good and the desperation passes then they attribute it to God. If not well they find excuses or realize that help was never on the way. Just because the outcome was possitive in their dire situation doesnt mean God helped them. Help was never on the way. They just relied on themselves somehow or did something and thus the right outcome came. God never interved. He will never do.
Deconstruction at its best i guess. As i was losing my faith i realized that prayer,the commandments of bible,the âforgive even the worst kind of peopleâ,etc etc are not applicable. Demands that no one can do. Ever.
Then you probably shouldnât describe the anecdotes as empirical evidence because that implies that Godâs existence is scientifically provable.
Your second paragraph contradicts your first paragraph.
Here ya go:
Whether or not I repeat their experiments does not change the fact that they are repeatable. Anecdotes are not repeatable, and are therefore not empirical evidence.
What wouldnât be consistent with God intervening?
Thatâs subjective opinion, not empirical evidence.
Like I said before, the universe I see is indistinguishable from one where God does not exist. Your statement above is exactly what I am talking about.
You are claiming scientific proof when you claim you have empirical evidence. Therefore, you need a control.
2 Likes
I think it it is you who do not understand what empirical means. You automatically infer scientific empirical evidence where you should not.
No, it does not, because of your incorrect inference about the word empirical.
Understood. The eyes and ears of faith are needed, and a heart for God.
Then Jesus said, âWhoever has ears to hear, let them hear."
Mark 4:9
No. It is about the meaning of empirical. Empirical evidence does not have to be replicable. Scientific empirical evidence does.
You missed my point â it was not just about icebergs. Iâm sorry you went to that effort.
As shown in the paper I quote, you can access the same data that the authors are reporting on. Thatâs how empirical evidence works.
1 Like
I understand how empirical evidence works. I also understand that in science and among scientists the term implicitly connotes scientific empirical data. That I went to the post office this morning is also empirical â itâs not just my opinion.
You still trust the data and photographs, that nothing has been tampered with or photoshopped in between the physical source of the data and your eyes. (You also trust your eyes.) Itâs a matter of faith.
A particular iceberg being born is a one-time event. What is being established is an M.O., so to speak, of how icebergs come to be.
What the empirical evidence in the first-person accounts that I have cited demonstrate is an M.O. of Godâs providence, that he can infuse meaning between and among multiple otherwise disconnected events by orchestrating their timing and placing. In the case of my nephrectomy, his sovereignty is demonstrated from the molecular scale to the astronomical.
(Youâre still missing the point about the âninety-seven millionâ â you still trust without verifying. A lot.)
I think thats enough with the empirical evidence debate here. We are risking moderators taking the thread down i think
Thatâs an anecdote. It is not empirical data.
Thatâs not faith.
Thatâs not empirical evidence.
2 Likes
You misunderstand and we disagree. A forensic investigator would not.
It is verifiable by other evidence. So is the information in the other first-person accounts.