Is natural science a scam?

[Warrior1979]

What happens when an entire field of science is built on a faulty underlying assumption?

It gets corrected.

Basically, science is an explanation of something we observe. Those observations are analyzed and summarized into a coherent theory. It is possible that some of the underlying assumptions are incorrect, and get corrected as new information emerges…keep in mind, though, that it doesn’t change the observations…they are still factual.

 

[Warrior1979]

What disturbs me is the fact that the scientific community will not allow discussion of ideas that are contrary to their accepted theories. I thought science was about letting the facts speak for themselves and hang anyone’s opinions. But, there’s too much at stake in the way of reputations and funding for the scientific community to be open to conflicting ideas, even ones that later prove to be truth, such as the moon being the product of the collision of another planet with earth near its beginning. The very idea was not allowed in discussion until it was shown, through computer modeling that it was a viable theory. So no, I don’t trust whatever the latest “science” says about anything when I know those behind it can’t be open nor face being contradicted when money and reputations are on the line.

It is true that there is resistance to change. But it doesn’t stop science from progressing anyway.

 

[buffalo]

The whole structure tumbles! (this is what I’m trying to get at in my OP) It’s like the structure of beliefs in psychology. Change a belief that is along the horizontal structure and not much happens. But change a belief along the vertical structure and everything above it tumbles down. I remember when I first became a believer in religion there was a “earthquake” of thoughts that many thoughts and beliefs needed to get rearranged. Those beliefs along the vertical structure are pretty well guarded against and a person will live in denial. So to, the faulty underlying assumptions of science are well protected. The theories in Immanuel Velikovsky’s book “Worlds in Collision” is one fine example and was met with ridicule and unwarranted rejection by scientists.

J. Harlen Bretz was scoffed at and ostracized for his presentations on the Scablands megaflood. It took around 50-60 years for acceptance. Uniformatarianism has been the predominant theory for 200 years or so. Catastrphism is now back in play. Lots and lots of publications were written in error during this period. These were taught as fact.

 

[Della]

It is true that there is resistance to change. But it doesn’t stop science from progressing anyway.

One would hope. The problem is the people who hold onto pet theories and will not hear any objections even if they make as much sense of the evidence. That is a human failing found in every field. Unfortunately, far too many people put their “faith” in whatever scientists say without questioning anything all the while scoffing and questioning anything and everything to do with religion. Science has become religion for many–but it’s not true science, it’s scientism, which cannot answer the most basic questions of: human intelligence, human destiny, or the purpose of intelligence–all philosophical and religious questions that can’t be determined in a test tube or through scientific theory.

 

[Monica4316]

What are the chances that science is a scam? The theory of evolution, for example, being a bunch of lies? How could humans have lived the way that “science” presumes and actually survive? For example, did our ancestors really live in caves and survived? Or, were we really created and placed here on this earth at a much later time? Is archaeological evidence similar to the ideas presented by Immanuel Velikovsky?

I think that some science is a scam, but not all. Depends on what we are talking about. Science in general - chemistry, physics, etc, - is fine. imo…

 

[Nimzovik]

Pure Science without spin is contiguous with the parameters of Faith. Ergo science is not a scam. I have, however, met some scientists that did some serious scamming using ‘science’ tho…

 

[ricmat]

Here’s an article about science, written by a scientist, a good one, it appears.

firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases

Yes, science may correct itself, but look how long it’s taking with this.

 

[Luvya]

One would hope. The problem is the people who hold onto pet theories and will not hear any objections even if they make as much sense of the evidence. That is a human failing found in every field.

No one disputes that. Fortunately there is another human failing: good old jealousy. Therefore the accepted pet theories will be under constant attack. So your hope is not misplaced. There is something else to consider. We need to balance the time and energy spent of new research and looking for holes in old theories. That is the reason why accepted theories are so hard to dislodge - but they will be, eventually.

Fermat’s last theorem was “proven” so many times that it became a almost a joke. Of course every time a new “proof” was presented, mathematicians from all over the world jumped on it, tore it apart and showed where the author erred. Finally it lookes like that it is new really proven, but some mathematicians still try to find some errors. Bully for them.

Unfortunately, far too many people put their “faith” in whatever scientists say without questioning anything all the while scoffing and questioning anything and everything to do with religion.

You are mistaken. Everything needs to be questioned. Science, however, can prove what it says, while religion cannot.

Science has become religion for many–but it’s not true science, it’s scientism, which cannot answer the most basic questions of: human intelligence, human destiny, or the purpose of intelligence–all philosophical and religious questions that can’t be determined in a test tube or through scientific theory.

Scientists do not care about those questions. They are too busy calculating and have no time for futile and empty speculations. Philosophers and other people with a lot of time on their hands engage in such speculations. Nothing ever comes out of them, except some fun doing it. It is all entertainment. (Of course philosophers will deny this. No wonder since it is their livelyhood what is at stake.)

 

[Della]

No one disputes that. Fortunately there is another human failing: good old jealousy. Therefore the accepted pet theories will be under constant attack. So your hope is not misplaced. There is something else to consider. We need to balance the time and energy spent of new research and looking for holes in old theories. That is the reason why accepted theories are so hard to dislodge - but they will be, eventually.

Fermat’s last theorem was “proven” so many times that it became a almost a joke. Of course every time a new “proof” was presented, mathematicians from all over the world jumped on it, tore it apart and showed where the author erred. Finally it lookes like that it is new really proven, but some mathematicians still try to find some errors. Bully for them.

There’s nothing wrong with scientists challenging theories. That’s a part of what makes science what it is.

You are mistaken. Everything needs to be questioned. Science, however, can prove what it says, while religion cannot.

No, it doesn’t work in theology because true theology is the study, not of theories, but of a Person. It’s not about probing the unknown, it’s about getting to know One who has made Himself known through revelation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method, so it simply doesn’t apply.

Scientists do not care about those questions. They are too busy calculating and have no time for futile and empty speculations. Philosophers and other people with a lot of time on their hands engage in such speculations. Nothing ever comes out of them, except some fun doing it. It is all entertainment. (Of course philosophers will deny this. No wonder since it is their livelyhood what is at stake.)

I think you are letting a personal bias show here. Philosophy is vitally important in understanding why we are the kind of people we are and why we do the things we do. So, it has quite practical applications. If you study philosophy, you will come to understand this.

 

[Pondero]

Empirical science by itself has a very limited say about the universe. It is limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. It has to be observable, repeatable and predictable.

When pronouncements are made beyond the above it is then philosophy. I believe that is where many problems occur.

In the past science was known as natural philosophy. Perhaps it is a worthy term that we should again use.

I agree with the first sentence Buffalo, but explain, please how any other pronouncements have to be philosophy? Surely, it could be religion, ancient and modern!

I know that natural philosophy included science in times past. I also know that after Aquinas, Etienne Gilson, and Maritain other philosophers " have lost it" for want of a better term to determine their confusion.

 

[Pondero]

What disturbs me is the fact that the scientific community will not allow discussion of ideas that are contrary to their accepted theories. I thought science was about letting the facts speak for themselves and hang anyone’s opinions. But, there’s too much at stake in the way of reputations and funding for the scientific community to be open to conflicting ideas, even ones that later prove to be truth,

I heartily agree Della, very well put. For example, the theory of evolution!!

 

[Krakatoa]

Real science is not a scam. It involves empirical evidence, that is measuring and testing matter to better understand the world and universe. What can be and often is a scam is pseudo science claiming to be science. When the scientific method is abandoned, and ‘experiments’ achieve a pre-desired outcome, and the result is labeled ‘science’, or ‘scientific’, then that is, of course, a scam. There is really no such thing as ‘bad science’ because ‘bad science’ is not science at all.

 

[Luvya]

There’s nothing wrong with scientists challenging theories. That’s a part of what makes science what it is.

Exactly. That is what I say, too. But scientists don’t keep on challenging all the old theories just for the fun of it. They start challenging only when there is a good reason to do so. Sometimes there are pseudo-scientific assertions popping out of the woodwork: astrology, aura readers, dowsing, little green men visiting and abducting humans, New Age nonsense, etc… The proponents of these whacky ideas keep complaining that science neglects to take their claims seriously. Of course it does. The proponents can invest the time and money, and if they start to show results, science will take them seriously.

No, it doesn’t work in theology because true theology is the study, not of theories, but of a Person. It’s not about probing the unknown, it’s about getting to know One who has made Himself known through revelation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method, so it simply doesn’t apply.

Theology makes definitive statements. Just because the subject is different, the necessity to give objective underpinning for these statements is still there. On what grounds should one accept or discard these statements? How does someone know if these statements are true or not? How do I know if this assumed revelation really happened, or it is just a legend? These questions are legitimate. You need to substantiate that there WAS a revelation, and that revelation actually WAS what you say it was. Referring to an authority (the Church) is insufficient, because the Church cannot prove or substantiate its claims either. When push comes to shove, it always boils down to “faith”. So people are right to question everything what some religion says - because “faith” is not an epistemological method.

I think you are letting a personal bias show here. Philosophy is vitally important in understanding why we are the kind of people we are and why we do the things we do. So, it has quite practical applications. If you study philosophy, you will come to understand this.

Nope, philosophy says nothing about any of these. It has three branches: 1) metaphysics (asking what exists?), 2) epistemology (how do we know it? what are the ways and means of obtaining knowledge?) and finally 3) ethics (how should we behave?).

Metaphysics is simple: we know that the physical universe exists. Everything else is pure speculation.
Epistemology is simple: the cycle of “observe, hypothesize, predict and verify” (the scientific method) is the only method for obtaining knowledge of the physical universe. The hypothesized non-physical existence (the realm of religion) could never present a valid, objective method how to separate its valid claims from the false ones.
Ethics is simple: the two versions of the golden rule are sufficient to build a good, working moral code. Do not hurt others, and help others - because you do not want to be hurt, and because you want to be helped in the time of need. Nothing else is needed. To allow a stable society to exist it is enough if everyone follows the old maxim: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. Now, one does not need to stop here, one can create other rules (be helpful to others), but they are only icing on the cake - nice but not really necessary. Mutual respect for each other is the foundation of morality.

Of these three branches epistemology is the important one. Anyone can speculate about anything. The point is always, can they substantiate their speculation? If they can, everything is fine. If they cannot: “too bad”. Just another speculation, not be taken seriously.

 

[Warrior1979]

One would hope.

It does, though it may occur outside the mainstream. The truth can only be ignored for so long.

 

[Della]

Exactly. That is what I say, too. But scientists don’t keep on challenging all the old theories just for the fun of it. They start challenging only when there is a good reason to do so. Sometimes there are pseudo-scientific assertions popping out of the woodwork: astrology, aura readers, dowsing, little green men visiting and abducting humans, New Age nonsense, etc… The proponents of these whacky ideas keep complaining that science neglects to take their claims seriously. Of course it does. The proponents can invest the time and money, and if they start to show results, science will take them seriously.

Yes, pseudo-science does pop up, but so does sound theory that flies in the teeth of accepted dogma. There are many “theories” that cannot be proven by testing that are accepted simply because most scientists accept them. And no, I’m not going to list them–that’s not what this thread is about.

Theology makes definitive statements. Just because the subject is different, the necessity to give objective underpinning for these statements is still there. On what grounds should one accept or discard these statements? How does someone know if these statements are true or not? How do I know if this assumed revelation really happened, or it is just a legend? These questions are legitimate. You need to substantiate that there WAS a revelation, and that revelation actually WAS what you say it was. Referring to an authority (the Church) is insufficient, because the Church cannot prove or substantiate its claims either. When push comes to shove, it always boils down to “faith”. So people are right to question everything what some religion says - because “faith” is not an epistemological method.

No, you are wrong about this. The Church doesn’t make claims that cannot be proven. It has the claims of millions of witnesses both past and present as to the truths it teaches. Unlike other revelatory religions, it is rooted in real history and deals with real people. No one is being asked to accept anything that didn’t actually happen–the most important being the Resurrection. Catholicism is historically proveable. That some people refuse to believe it or others have never heard of it doesn’t make it untrue.

Nope, philosophy says nothing about any of these. It has three branches: 1) metaphysics (asking what exists?), 2) epistemology (how do we know it? what are the ways and means of obtaining knowledge?) and finally 3) ethics (how should we behave?).

Metaphysics is simple: we know that the physical universe exists. Everything else is pure speculation.

According to some in philosophy we can’t take the physical universe as a given. Can you prove them wrong based on their criteria? I doubt it. Not that I disagree with you but there are many philosophers who would.

Epistemology is simple: the cycle of “observe, hypothesize, predict and verify” (the scientific method) is the only method for obtaining knowledge of the physical universe. The hypothesized non-physical existence (the realm of religion) could never present a valid, objective method how to separate its valid claims from the false ones.

So you say. This is merely your assumption. I happen to believe, and with solid evidence, that the universe is created not merely random and you can’t prove otherwise. Try.

Ethics is simple: the two versions of the golden rule are sufficient to build a good, working moral code. Do not hurt others, and help others - because you do not want to be hurt, and because you want to be helped in the time of need. Nothing else is needed. To allow a stable society to exist it is enough if everyone follows the old maxim: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. Now, one does not need to stop here, one can create other rules (be helpful to others), but they are only icing on the cake - nice but not really necessary. Mutual respect for each other is the foundation of morality.

Again, you are assuming things according to how you see them. This is not proof of anything. Not to be argumentative, but you are going on faith much more than I.

Of these three branches epistemology is the important one. Anyone can speculate about anything. The point is always, can they substantiate their speculation? If they can, everything is fine. If they cannot: “too bad”. Just another speculation, not be taken seriously.

No, you can’t just make statements like this and think that settles things. Maybe it settles them for you–that’s for you to decide, but it doesn’t mean anything to others since they would strongly disagree, and with good reason. Merely declaring what you think these things mean is not the same thing as stating what they are. If you are happy thinking so, again, that’s up to you. I have no desire to argue when your arguments are based on how you’d like things to be. No one can argue against feelings or debate what is real based on personal assumptions. All the best to you, though.

 

[Della]

It does, though it may occur outside the mainstream. The truth can only be ignored for so long.

Yes, the truth, like murder will out.

 

[Luvya]

No, you are wrong about this. The Church doesn’t make claims that cannot be proven. It has the claims of millions of witnesses both past and present as to the truths it teaches. Unlike other revelatory religions, it is rooted in real history and deals with real people. No one is being asked to accept anything that didn’t actually happen–the most important being the Resurrection. Catholicism is historically proveable. That some people refuse to believe it or others have never heard of it doesn’t make it untrue.

Well, bring up some “historical proof” for walking on water, resurrection, etc… The fact that there are some events in the Bible, which are well-documented (and as such they are not doubted) does not lend any credence to the rest. You say: “The Church doesn’t make claims that cannot be proven.” That is an awefully serious claim. How can the Church prove all those claims about the supernatural? Prove the existence of an “immortal soul”, or the existence of “angels and demons”? Prove that there was a “fallout in heaven”, where one third of the angels “rebelled”? I think you have bitten off more than you can chew.

According to some in philosophy we can’t take the physical universe as a given. Can you prove them wrong based on their criteria? I doubt it. Not that I disagree with you but there are many philosophers who would.

Sure, solipsists deny the existence of the universe. A simple kick into their posterior will convince them that they are in error. Why should we care about them? As soon as they open their mouth to give voice to their claims, they refute themselves. You claim that there is more than the physical universe. What can you bring up as evidence for that positive claim?

So you say. This is merely your assumption. I happen to believe, and with solid evidence, that the universe is created not merely random and you can’t prove otherwise. Try.

Why should I try to prove a negative? The point is that claims about the physical universe can be proven by the empirical, scientific method. What is your suggested epistemological method to substantiate your claims? What method do you suggest to separate the wheat from the chaff? I have never seen one. All I saw so far is “you must have faith”, or “you must have trust”. That is what every snake-oil peddler says. I hope the Church is above those charlatans.

Again, you are assuming things according to how you see them. This is not proof of anything. Not to be argumentative, but you are going on faith much more than I.

The basic methods suggested are the logical foundation for a well-working society. If you wish to argue that they are inherently contradictory, and therefore cannot work, you are welcome. If you wish to establish that they are deficient, you are more then welcome to suggest more “moral rules”.

No, you can’t just make statements like this and think that settles things. Maybe it settles them for you–that’s for you to decide, but it doesn’t mean anything to others since they would strongly disagree, and with good reason. Merely declaring what you think these things mean is not the same thing as stating what they are. If you are happy thinking so, again, that’s up to you. I have no desire to argue when your arguments are based on how you’d like things to be. No one can argue against feelings or debate what is real based on personal assumptions. All the best to you, though.

I am baffled here. Why do you think that you gave me an answer to what I said? I said: “Anyone can speculate about anything.” Is that true or false? “If they can substantiate it, it is well and good”. Is there anything problematic here? “If they cannot substantiate it, it is just another empty, irrelevant speculation”. What is your problem with this? Three simple, direct questions for you.

 

[Robert_Sock]

It seems to me that many Catholics on this thread are placing more faith in science than in God. Yes, the hard sciences can be trusted to a large degree, but the natural and soft sciences must be questioned. For example, every decade or so, psychologists “discover” the cause of schizophrenia! When will we wake up and see that theories in natural sciences, like evolution, are in error? Like Della has stated, there are many untestable theories that scientists take for granted.

 

[Della]

Well, bring up some “historical proof” for walking on water, resurrection, etc… The fact that there are some events in the Bible, which are well-documented (and as such they are not doubted) does not lend any credence to the rest. You say: “The Church doesn’t make claims that cannot be proven.” That is an awefully serious claim. How can the Church prove all those claims about the supernatural? Prove the existence of an “immortal soul”, or the existence of “angels and demons”? Prove that there was a “fallout in heaven”, where one third of the angels “rebelled”? I think you have bitten off more than you can chew.

Sure, solipsists deny the existence of the universe. A simple kick into their posterior will convince them that they are in error. Why should we care about them? As soon as they open their mouth to give voice to their claims, they refute themselves. You claim that there is more than the physical universe. What can you bring up as evidence for that positive claim?

There is plenty of evidence, but it’s not the kind of evidence you’d necessarily be willing to accept. The proof is, as they say, in the pudding. Theology is more like baking a cake than testing a theory. If the cake is good, the theology is good. And the Catholic theology is good–it lines up with how people really are and is the real remedy for what is wrong with the human soul. That’s its purpose, not to prove the existence of God or angels, etc. God does exist because Christ has been raised from the dead. If Christ is not alive then neither is Christianity. It’s as simple as that. Faith is faith in a Person not in teachings/theories. We trust God because we know him–like we know a family member or a friend. He simply is–if he decides to reveal himself he does, if not, he doesn’t. Only a person has such free will. The natural forces of the universe are not persons, which is why one can discover things about them through experimentation and observation. But a Person may not always be observed nor can he be proven true through experimentation. We’re talking about apples and oranges. The scientific method, developed by Catholic scientists, by the way, is fine for gaining knowledge about the natural world, but it’s not the right method for understanding God nor the nature of man. Those last things are theological matters, not scientific ones.

Why should I try to prove a negative? The point is that claims about the physical universe can be proven by the empirical, scientific method. What is your suggested epistemological method to substantiate your claims? What method do you suggest to separate the wheat from the chaff? I have never seen one. All I saw so far is “you must have faith”, or “you must have trust”. That is what every snake-oil peddler says. I hope the Church is above those charlatans.

As I said, the Resurrection is the proof that Christ is who he claimed to be. And the Church’s history proves it is Christ’s Church. No other religion can make the same claims as the Church and stand up to scrutiny. If you are truly interested do a bit of research. All you need to start can be found right here on Catholic Answers.

The basic methods suggested are the logical foundation for a well-working society. If you wish to argue that they are inherently contradictory, and therefore cannot work, you are welcome. If you wish to establish that they are deficient, you are more then welcome to suggest more “moral rules”.

I’m sorry, you’ve lost me here. No doubt my fault.

I am baffled here. Why do you think that you gave me an answer to what I said? I said: “Anyone can speculate about anything.” Is that true or false? “If they can substantiate it, it is well and good”. Is there anything problematic here? “If they cannot substantiate it, it is just another empty, irrelevant speculation”. What is your problem with this? Three simple, direct questions for you.

You’re right, I didn’t answer what you wrote, I stated that you seem to be basing your statements on your feelings not on facts. So many people just take whatever they hear from mainstream scientists as the truth when they make statements about religion because they trust scientists as people who can prove their “beliefs”. But, scientists can be just as ignorant about theology as any other lay person with little to no education on the topic. I have a B. A. in Bible and religious education. It doesn’t make me an expert, but it does mean that I know a little something about the topic–certainly more than scientists with no such education who makes statements about a topic about which they know nearly nothing. They sound foolish–anyone who speaks authoritatively about things they don’t really know does. It simply bothers me that people will believe them over someone like, for example, Pope Benedict, who knows far more than they (or I), who taught at universities and proves the truths he teaches by the witness of his life. I call that ignorance and bias. What would you call it?

 

[Luvya]

There is plenty of evidence, but it’s not the kind of evidence you’d necessarily be willing to accept. The proof is, as they say, in the pudding. Theology is more like baking a cake than testing a theory. If the cake is good, the theology is good. And the Catholic theology is good–it lines up with how people really are and is the real remedy for what is wrong with the human soul.

I understand what you mean here. Effectively you say that the Catholic theology addresses certain needs for some people quite well, and thus it is “true”. If it tastes good, it is a good pudding. However, for other people a different theology “feels good” - therefore that is also true? You have two contradicting, “feels good” theologies, and based upon your criteria, both are “true”. Does not bode well.

We trust God because we know him–like we know a family member or a friend.

Obviously you must be special. I do not “trust” God, because I don’t know him. He never introduced himself to me. Even when I was a believer, I never felt that I “know” him. All I have is a bunch of second-hand information, the testimonial of believers. I do not wish to offend anyone, but why should I trust you?

The scientific method, developed by Catholic scientists, by the way, is fine for gaining knowledge about the natural world, but it’s not the right method for understanding God nor the nature of man. Those last things are theological matters, not scientific ones.

No, the scientific method was developed by unknown scientists during the millenia (some of whom were Catholic, of course). Don’t try to gather extra brownie points by making such outlandish claims. The old Greeks were not Catholic, the Arabs who came up with wonderful mathematics were not Catholic. But that is beside the point. Many of those activities you talk about happen in the natural, observable physical world, and as such they are subject to the scientific verification. None of them pass the test - “mene, tekel, ufarsin”, does it ring a bell?

As I said, the Resurrection is the proof that Christ is who he claimed to be. And the Church’s history proves it is Christ’s Church. No other religion can make the same claims as the Church and stand up to scrutiny. If you are truly interested do a bit of research. All you need to start can be found right here on Catholic Answers.

Sorry, the claims of the Church do not stand up to scrutiny. There is asbolutely no evidence that there was a revelation, or there was a resurrection. Just claims, and no evidence.

I’m sorry, you’ve lost me here. No doubt my fault.

All I said that there are two basic principles which will ensure a well working society, the two versions of the golden rule. (Don’t hurt others, because you don’t want to be hurt, and be helpful to others, because you might need help in times of need. To put it simply: “what goes around, comes around”.) You said that it is just my opinion, insinuating that there is something fundamentally wrong with these principles. I was asking to elaborate, if you are so inclined.

You’re right, I didn’t answer what you wrote, I stated that you seem to be basing your statements on your feelings not on facts. So many people just take whatever they hear from mainstream scientists as the truth when they make statements about religion because they trust scientists as people who can prove their “beliefs”. But, scientists can be just as ignorant about theology as any other lay person with little to no education on the topic. I have a B. A. in Bible and religious education. It doesn’t make me an expert, but it does mean that I know a little something about the topic–certainly more than scientists with no such education who makes statements about a topic about which they know nearly nothing. They sound foolish–anyone who speaks authoritatively about things they don’t really know does. It simply bothers me that people will believe them over someone like, for example, Pope Benedict, who knows far more than they (or I), who taught at universities and proves the truths he teaches by the witness of his life. I call that ignorance and bias. What would you call it?

I have no idea what is the relevance of this. All I said that speculation remains empty speculation if the person cannot substantiate it. Now an authority is anyone who can prove or substantiate what he says. Can the Pope substantiate that the resurrection actually happened?

There are two problems with your claims.

Some of them pertain to the past. Claims about the past cannot be substantiated the “usual” way, since we have no time machine to go back and verify them. We need to rely on testimonials. But testimonials are only accepted when there are several, independent witnesses, preferably from differing viewpoints. There are no witnesses for the Biblical claims, only second-, third-hand descriptions, made by unknown authors. The fact that some of the events in the Bible are corroborated by independent authors does not lend any credence to the “rest”.

The other claims you (in general, not personal you) make pertain to the present and as such they are subject to the scientific verification. Just an example: “prayers bring on positive, verifyable results”. When a test is peformed, these claims all belly-flop. There are no significant claims that can be verified. It is all fluff.