Two more ways to convince a skeptic that God is real

[Protestor]

No, I didn’t necessarily mean Christians only or even all Christians. How do you think all the “stuff” that went into the creation of the universe got where it is? How did it come into being?

Okay.

I don’t know, and I don’t know how I could know. I do not think that if this is an answerable question that philosophy will be able to find it. It’s kind of like asking how did God get where he is and how did he come into being. As far as I know there is no rule that says the “stuff” the universe was made from had to come into being/existence. It could have always been in existence. That’s why people who talk about these kind of things use words that I don’t really care for like timeless or spaceless. So they don’t run into problems like the necessity of the finitude of the past.

I always wondered why theologians were so hesitant to say that it was Creatio ex Deo. I figure it is probably something to do with making God some sort of panacea. More probably it has to do with it being easily falsified or unbiblical.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Of course. Don’t forget that explanations cannot go to infinity. There must be a “brute fact” which needs no explanation. Atheists choose the universe for this “role”. After all the word universe means “everything there is”.

Of course if you are going to arbitrarily decide what is a ‘brute fact’ then any ‘brute fact’ is as good as another. I could for instance postulate that the universe was created by giant sea monkeys and their existence would be a ‘brute fact’. However, for philosophers like Aquinas the existence of God is not a ‘brute fact’. It is in fact a necessity, in the same way it is necessary for a house to have a foundation if it is to stand. A ‘brute fact’ may be something we postulate that exists without explanation. But, Aquinas does not come to the conclusion of God’s existence based on such reasoning. And, he does not assume God’s existence and then try to prove that assumption. Rather, Aquinas comes to the conclusion of God’s existence by observation and reason. He does so by observing change in the world. Not many would deny that things change in our universe. But, for every change to be actualized there must be something to actualize it. Everything in the universe is a mixture of potentiality and actuality. However, Aquinas realized that there must be something that exists that is pure Actualization with no potentiality. For everything that has potentiality needs something else to actualize it. There is of course much more to consider than what I would wish to write here.

Also, I would add that to define the universe as “everything that exists” is begging the question.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Very few people would agree that we can know nothing or must doubt everything (imho the two kinds of universal skepticism). Reminds me of Feynman’s joke: youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

Of course I agree.

You seem to be denying that there have ever been any miscarriages of justice through juries deciding on reasonable doubt. Was Newton’s theory of gravity ever 100% certain? Is Einstein’s? Do you crave certainty? Here’s the atheist scientist Fenyman again, saying he can’t be sure about anything, and likes it that way: youtube.com/watch?v=I1tKEvN3DF0

I am with you… there is no certainty. But somewhere we need to draw the line and separate “knowledge” from “hypothesis”. The reasonable doubt - while not “perfect” - looks like the best solution.

But your claim was “the “average” person has a very low level of skepticism”, which would mean that if you took a sample of 1,000 people, most would have been suckered like that, and I’m not seeing any empirical evidence.

I expressed my gut feeling. I don’t know of a well constructed survey to separate the gullible from the skeptics.

Not sure what contradictory concepts you’re talking about.

The “goodness” of God and the actual state of affairs. The “mercy” and “justice” which are contradictory. No being can be BOTH “just” and “merciful” at the same time in the same context. The concept of “immutable God”, who is nevertheless “active”. And zillions of others.

But also, we know from the Soviet Union that religion can be banned for generations, and then as soon as the Berlin Wall came down, religion makes a return. It serves many purposes and you as a nonbeliever might love to legislate it away as it’s not “pure” according to your worldview, but your attitude is damaging not only to yourself … well, you get the picture .

Personally, I would not legislate away anything that is only harmful to oneself. And I would never touch the freedom of those who volitionally enter into a relationship which might be harmful to themselves. If someone is stupid enough to sign away their life savings to a bogus “faith healer” or any other scam-artist, let them do it. They could earn a place in DarwinAwards.com and not pollute the gene-pool with their genes. A friend of mine said: “Let the idiots die”, and while it is not very “kind”, there is a lot of truth in it.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am quite familiar with Aquinas and his ideas.

He does so by observing change in the world. Not many would deny that things change in our universe. But, for every change to be actualized there must be something to actualize it.

That is error number one. This is just an unsubstantiated assertion. In the time of Aquinas people thought about the universe as a huge billiard table, where the balls keep hitting each other, thereby bringing actuality from potentiality. Aquinas thought that there must be a huge “cue stick” which set the whole shebang into motion. He never thought that “change” is built into the fabric of the universe, that there is no “resting state”, and that something external is necessary for setting the balls in motion.

That he was ignorant of the reality is obvious. No one should blame him for not knowing the actual physics, after all in his age the only thing was predominant - ignorance. As such he speculated on the actual workings of the universe, and made incorrect conclusions. There is no need for “prime mover”, or “first cause”, or any of the other ideas he came up with. The sad thing is that after these hundreds of years he is still taken seriously by some people.

Also, I would add that to define the universe as “everything that exists” is begging the question.

If so, then every definition would be “begging the question”.

 

[ericc]

There is no need for “prime mover”, or “first cause”, or any of the other ideas he came up with. The sad thing is that after these hundreds of years he is still taken seriously by some people.

If there is no such thing as a “cause” why would science rely on cause and effect for its argument?

So are how are you refuting the First Cause argument? Yes , there are many intelligent people today that subscribe to the First Cause argument and I haven’t heard of a credible rebuttal yet. Calling Aquinas “ignorant” is not a rebuttal to his argument.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If there is no such thing as a “cause”

No one says that.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I am quite familiar with Aquinas and his ideas. That is error number one. This is just an unsubstantiated assertion. In the time of Aquinas people thought about the universe as a huge billiard table, where the balls keep hitting each other, thereby bringing actuality from potentiality. Aquinas thought that there must be a huge “cue stick” which set the whole shebang into motion. He never thought that “change” is built into the fabric of the universe, that there is no “resting state”, and that something external is necessary for setting the balls in motion.

You seem to contradict yourself here, or possibly you made a mistake. For your last sentence seems to say that Aquinas never thought something external is necessary for “setting the balls in motion”. But, at any rate you talk about billiard tables and cue sticks. In reality, Aquinas’ argument is nothing like the sort. It is not Intelligent Design or about God starting the whole thing at some point in time. Rather, it is about understanding how something is sustained in being through a causal chain that must have a first cause, not in time, but in a hierarchy of causes that exist in any given moment for its effect to be achieved. Kind of like the house on a foundation. In order for a house to be held up it must be held up by something. That is the house has a foundation that passes on its stability onto the house. But, the stability in the foundation is itself caused by the stability of the earth. But, this causal chain can not extend infinitely back. It does not extend back infinitely in time, but in a hierarchy. Each cause must exist at the same time in order for the house to stand. Thus, It must have a first cause. There must be some source of stability that requires no other cause of its stability. Or we could not have stability. For if nothing had it to begin with, nothing could have received it to pass it on. And, this causal chain with a first cause would remain true even if the house, the foundation, and the earth had existed from all of eternity. Take away any of those causes at any point in time and the house can not stand. We can consider the earth to be this first cause for purposes of illustration.

If so, then every definition would be “begging the question”.

I can not accept your definition of the universe anymore than you could accept the definition of the universe as being all of material creation. For God is not part of the universe yet he exists. And, for you to accept creation would mean you would have to accept a creator. To say that everything that exists is contained in the universe would be an assumption. Even scientists have considered the possibility that there could exist something outside the universe. For example the possibility of the multiverse.

The Oxford dictionary defines the universe as

“(the universe) All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.”

Yet, you said the universe was everything that exists. That is different than saying “all existing matter”. But, you would be begging the question if you are saying all that exists period is “All existing matter and space”. Because, basically you are saying that materialism is true in your definition.

 

[ericc]

No one says that.

Then I’d like you to refute his First Cause argument since Aquinas has proposed it notwithstanding his ignorance of modern physics. That would be easy for you? I’d like to find out what is wrong with that argument as William Craig uses it frequently in his debates.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I should add that in Aquinas’ day the prevailing view of the universe was that it had been around for eternity. Thus, Aquinas’ argument wasn’t about a cue hitting a ball and starting a sequences of events in time. Rather, Aquinas’ argument stands whether the balls were in motion for all of eternity.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Really? That’s news to me. Which scientists are these? What is the proof that the universe is ‘intelligently designed’?

In this case, Google is your friend. I am sure many of the eminent scientists who subscribe to the theory are quoted on Websites and can describe things and offer proof a lot better than I can. Look them up. Honestly, I would think anyone would already be aware of them. We study them in school, etc.

 

[ericc]

Really? That’s news to me. Which scientists are these? What is the proof that the universe is ‘intelligently designed’?

In this case, Google is your friend. I am sure many of the eminent scientists who subscribe to the theory are quoted on Websites and can describe things and offer proof a lot better than I can. Look them up. Honestly, I would think anyone would already be aware of them. We study them in school, etc.

Let me help. Seems like there is a convenient collection here:

godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…The impression of design is overwhelming”. (4)

Paul Davies: “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”. (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” (6)

John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures… … If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.” (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one… Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].” (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.” (20)

cont’d

 

[ericc]

cont’d

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.” (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” (22)

Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) “Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.” (25)

There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.” (27)

 

[inocente]

Scientists used to believe that the universe was eternal, but they now have proof that it did, indeed, have a beginning and that it is intelligently designed.

You may be thinking the big bang theory says more than it really does. The originator of the theory, the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître, says this:

“We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.” - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847#sthash.8sD1ahgp.dpuf

 

[inocente]

I expressed my gut feeling. I don’t know of a well constructed survey to separate the gullible from the skeptics.

Then we’re agreed that one person’s gut feeling is not the same as beyond reasonable doubt.

*The “goodness” of God and the actual state of affairs. The “mercy” and “justice” which are contradictory. No being can be BOTH “just” and “merciful” at the same time in the same context. The concept of “immutable God”, who is nevertheless “active”. And zillions of others. *

Again I think there’s a selection bias. For example, as I just quoted him in another post, here again is the originator of the big bang theory, Monsignor George Lemaître, speaking about his theory:

“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in nonsingular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace’s “flick” or Jean’s “finger [of God agitating the ether]” consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah’s speaking of a “Hidden God”, hidden even in the beginning of creation.” - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847#sthash.8sD1ahgp.dpuf

Lemaître was no geek, he had the ear of his pope, and he connects with the book of Isaiah, written 28 centuries before, as did the doctor of divinity who taught me comparative religion. I predict very few posters on CAF would. There is such a big variation in beliefs that I predict if you were to closely question theists, you would find each person’s beliefs are unique. And if you questioned atheists, you’d also find each person’s beliefs are unique.

Personally, I would not legislate away anything that is only harmful to oneself. And I would never touch the freedom of those who volitionally enter into a relationship which might be harmful to themselves. If someone is stupid enough to sign away their life savings to a bogus “faith healer” or any other scam-artist, let them do it. They could earn a place in DarwinAwards.com and not pollute the gene-pool with their genes. A friend of mine said: “Let the idiots die”, and while it is not very “kind”, there is a lot of truth in it.

That’s dangerous. Agreed that in an ever more complicate society there should be a greater emphasis on teaching kids the pitfalls of our biases, but we evolved the traits we have because they aid survival. Your friend has no empirical evidence that her Utopian master race could survive. I predict it couldn’t since the traits she would take away are probably also responsible for social cohesion.

 

[inocente]

Let me help. Seems like there is a convenient collection here:

godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): …]

I’ve been castigating PA for selection bias and now you’re doing it too. It’s like deciding what we what the bible to say, then finding a verse which says roughly what we want, and then quoting it out of context to “prove” whatever we want. It’s called quote mining.

If you do a WHOIS on that website, you’ll find it belongs to a guy who gave his address as a hospital in LA. Probably costs him $12 a year. There will be other websites with just as many quotes which make science appear to say the exact opposite of that one. There’s no scholarship involved in quote mining, it’s selection bias, and whether it’s accidental or deliberate and premeditated, it can only fool the gullible.

 

[ericc]

I’ve been castigating PA for selection bias and now you’re doing it too. It’s like deciding what we what the bible to say, then finding a verse which says roughly what we want, and then quoting it out of context to “prove” whatever we want. It’s called quote mining.

If you do a WHOIS on that website, you’ll find it belongs to a guy who gave his address as a hospital in LA. Probably costs him $12 a year. There will be other websites with just as many quotes which make science appear to say the exact opposite of that one. There’s no scholarship involved in quote mining, it’s selection bias, and whether it’s accidental or deliberate and premeditated, it can only fool the gullible.

What do you mean by selection bias? Of course it is!. Nixbits asked for scientists who have a bias towards intelligent design. If my list is wrong factually, then do correct the errors. The author provided the sources of the quotes. If the author is not credible, then criticise the credibility of his sources, not whether he got his website hosted on the cheap. Please note that I did not claim that I am providing a balanced view, just the one asked for. Also I am not a fan of that site. But that does not mean he need to get approval to speak/write factually, sometimes. After all, everyone’s view is colored to some extent.

But the whole idea is to clue up anyone who thinks there are no scientist on the intelligent design bandwagon.

 

[inocente]

What do you mean by selection bias? Of course it is!. Nixbits asked for scientists who have a bias towards intelligent design. If my list is wrong factually, then do correct the errors. The author provided the sources of the quotes. If the author is not credible, then criticise the credibility of his sources, not whether he got his website hosted on the cheap. Please note that I did not claim that I am providing a balanced view, just the one asked for. Also I am not a fan of that site. But that does not mean he need to get approval to speak/write factually, sometimes. After all, everyone’s view is colored to some extent.

But the whole idea is to clue up anyone who thinks there are no scientist on the intelligent design bandwagon.

The webpage lists Stephen Hawking as one of those scientists. Stephen Hawking the well-known atheist. Stephen Hawking magically transformed into an ID fan by quote mining.

It also quotes Roger Penrose, the well-known humanist, who says he holds to no religious doctrine. It doesn’t even quote his entire sentence, and just two sentences later he writes that there is something much deeper of which we currently have “little inkling”, something the website carefully omits to pretend Penrose is an ID fan. (see humanism.org.uk/about/our-people/patrons/sir-roger-penrose/)

Took me five minutes to find that the site deliberately misrepresents Penrose. I’ve not looked at the rest, perhaps everyone on that list is similarly misrepresented. That’s what I mean by selection bias. Anyone can rent a cheap website and mine quotes to “prove” whatever they want.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Then we’re agreed that one person’s gut feeling is not the same as beyond reasonable doubt.

What is a reasonable doubt is contingent upon the person’s knowledge and their “selection bias”. If you look at Christians, most will gladly believe that Jesus walked on water (and other miracles), but they would vehemently deny that Mohammed actually had a flying horse. And both will be skeptical about the Book of Mormon.

Catholics swallowed the story of a Costa Rican woman’s story which led to John Paul’s canonization uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/24/uk-pope-saints-miracle-idUKBREA3N1P920140424. No skepticism there. Generally speaking people are “gullible” when the story confirms their belief and skeptical when it questions their belief. Obviously atheists are not immune to stupidity either. No one has “first dibs” on being smart of stupid.

This is why I always advocate the concept of objective studies. Let’s set up the hypothesis, conduct many experiments, and let the chips fall where they may. Now, you may ask correctly, WHICH claims should be examined and which should be accepted as parts of the already established “knowledge base”? The answer might be: “if something is widely accepted, then one needs some very serious new evidence to start to doubt it”. This approach “usually” works, and that should be sufficient.

There is such a big variation in beliefs that I predict if you were to closely question theists, you would find each person’s beliefs are unique. And if you questioned atheists, you’d also find each person’s beliefs are unique.

There is a lot of truth in this, but I would not go THAT far. Most people who belong to the same “belief system” accept the core tenets of that system and are skeptical about the beliefs of others. “Selection bias”, again.

That’s dangerous. Agreed that in an ever more complicate society there should be a greater emphasis on teaching kids the pitfalls of our biases, but we evolved the traits we have because they aid survival. Your friend has no empirical evidence that her Utopian master race could survive. I predict it couldn’t since the traits she would take away are probably also responsible for social cohesion.

It was not a serious effort to create a superior race. It came from the frustration of seeing the number of idiots… as I said, look at DarwinAwards.com for examples. It is hilariously funny.

 

[Nixbits]

ericc:

Nixbits asked for scientists who have a bias towards intelligent design.

ericc:

But the whole idea is to clue up anyone who thinks there are no scientist on the intelligent design bandwagon.

No, I didn’t ask this, and I don’t need to be clued up on this particular bandwagon. I asked Lily Berlans to provide evidence for her claim that there is proof that the universe is intelligently designed.

I still appreciate your posting the list of quotations, though. I would have been more impressed if it had come from a scientific website, and not from a religious one. Nevertheless, it’s prompted several hours of interesting reading.

However, from what I’ve read so far about the scientists on this list, there’s no mention of anything approaching a proof of intelligent design. At best the scientists listed were/are proponents for an argument in favour of intelligent design, but none, as far as I can see, has come up with anything that can be called a proof, or even a scientific theory.

Many, perhaps most, of the views of the scientists expressed in these quotations can be boiled down, it seems, to the fine tuning argument or the anthropic principle. Detailed and cogent arguments against both of these are readily available (so I won’t list them here.). But in any case I’ve found no evidence that any of these scientists developed a ‘proof’ of intelligent design, as was claimed by Lily Berlans. If instead she had said ‘arguments in favour of’, then I would not have challenged her claim, just remained quietly sceptical.

 

[inocente]

This is why I always advocate the concept of objective studies. Let’s set up the hypothesis, conduct many experiments, and let the chips fall where they may. Now, you may ask correctly, WHICH claims should be examined and which should be accepted as parts of the already established “knowledge base”? The answer might be: “if something is widely accepted, then one needs some very serious new evidence to start to doubt it”. This approach “usually” works, and that should be sufficient.

You’re describing confirmation bias - Christianity is widely accepted in America, so most Americans would need some very serious new evidence to start to doubt it. They’re doing exactly as you ask.

There are various possible reasons for confirmation bias, the simplest is that no one has anywhere near enough time to test everything as you suggest. But also, someone’s love for you or what Picasso’s Guernica says to you or even pop trivia like Cyndi Lauper’s Above The Clouds can’t be tested and analyzed that way. There may be some who think religion, literature, mountain climbing, dancing are now subservient to science, but it just ain’t so. Have a walk down to the art dept and talk to someone with paint on her nose.