Science does not invoke God, because the scientists see no need for that hypothesis. Even religious scientists do not say about their own discipline: “this phenomenon is forever inexplicable for us, because God, using undetetectable means made it somehow happen”. The religious scientists use the same materialistic / physicalistic method as their atheist brethren, don’t they? And the reason is simple: they want explanations and the religious “answer”: “an unknowable being using inexplicable means made it somehow happen” - is the very antithesis of an explanation.
The SM evolved historically exactly as I indicated as can be verified in the
Cambridge History of Science, vol. 3,
Early Modern Science and numerous other works. The reason the SM evolved as it did out of the philosophy of nature is that these philosophers of nature wanted more and more empirical, physical, mechanistic, atomistic, explanations relying on efficient causality with implications for technology. God’s action in the world was not “unknowable” “inexplicable” “somehow” to them. They were usually adept at metaphysical analysis. They just knew the difference between that and empirical, physical explanations; and they chose to explore the latter—which is fine. As you rightly point out the SM can be used properly by anybody. However metaphysical analyses are “unknowable” “inexplicable” “somehow” to those who already maintain TS or PS—not exactly a posture of accommodation to the possibility of non-physical reality.
Perhaps I could have put my q more clearly.
Do you see how someone [not necessarily you] espousing TS (=SM is sufficient for all statements “about facts,” i.e., statements that can be either true or false) and then claiming because of it there is no God would simply be rephrasing the atheist claim? Again, to take the SM, which
ex professo does not and cannot involve God, and then use it to determine if there is a God is about as circular and self-confirming as it gets.
Actually it could, by taking the believers at their word, namely that God interferes with reality. At the point of interference the “intrusion” could be detected - because it would be at least partially within the physical realm. Most Christians profess that prayer “works”, in the sense that God can be “nudged” or “influenced” to perform actions that will interfere with the natural flow of events in their favor. (As Ambrose Bierce said in the Devil’s Dictionary: “To pray (v.): To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.”).
If they are correct, then we could make progress by using a statistical method of investigation. It would not be able to prove causation, but at least it would be able to present a correlation. A positive correlation then would be the starting point to investigate further. But, of course there are no positive results either. Now consider the usual “reply”: God intentionally “skews” the results, because he wishes to stay hidden. Such intellectually dishonest “cop-outs” justly remove the proponents from serious consideration.
Again snide, crass caricature of prayer is not exactly a posture of accommodation to the possibility of non-physical reality. It would be the posture of someone committed to scientism and atheism. To believers God doesn’t usually interfere with the natural flow of events: He works within them. Read Aquinas’ analysis of secondary causality. If someone were praying for help and a friend from out of town they hadn’t seen for years dropped by unexpectedly and it was just what they needed, they wouldn’t in the least think it happened by miraculous means.
However, would a documented miracle (in RC terminology) really count as any evidence to you? Say a person goes to Lourdes, France with late stage degenerative bone cancer. X-rays prove it. They come out of the water and it is gone. This is then documented by the International Medical Association of Lourdes run only by doctors, who critically evaluate purported cures and document inexplicable ones. There are actually many documented cure at Lourdes. Would you even count that as evidence? All the SM can say is that it is inexplicable. What would that mean for PS? Probably just an unknown natural cause.
It’s true that statistical methods of investigating say, prayer, seem like a promising enterprise. A review of the literature shows results actually are mixed. I don’t think it is fair to say they are all negative. The big problem is no one can agree on an experimental design and method for the research. Atheistic opponents cite design flaws—at times for sound reasons; and theistic proponents often can’t agree on methods either. Given these design disputes, I don’t see how a statistical blip would be seen as methodologically valid or suggestive of divine action to atheists and even many theists.
Definitions are important though. If you’re doing scientific research for God as viewed by Christians, then it is for a personal, free, infinitely intelligent and powerful God. For one to approach Him like an impersonal natural phenomena or force and look for a God law or God effect that can be predicted and controlled is ludicrous for the defniition of the Christian God. . . actually it is what magic attempts to do.
Be that as it may, again, “to investigate further” as well as explore causation would require one to go beyond PS, which
per se is blind to God.
In sum, if you can’t or won’t go beyond scientism, you really won’t be able to accommodate the possibilty of some “non-physical reality.” I freely concede as I said from the beginning you will succeed in wasting a lot of time and typing scientifically verifying that the SM cannot verify God. Do you really need me to help with what appears to be an exercise in self-validation?
The University of Science Berkeley has an online document entitled