Is there room for an interventionist God in modern Science?

[Sci Fi Fan]

Let's ignore the question of past events such as the origin of the universe, and ongoing, long term events such as Evolution for once.

Look at current phenomena; the fundamental forces, quantum mechanics, radioactive decay, fluid flow, general relativity, etc.  For most of these subjects we have crafted equations to describe and predict interactions under most circumstances.  And never, never once, have we ever included a "god variable".  That is, F = ma, not F = ma + the sin of the sinner being pushed.  Your relative mass approaches an asymptote as your velocity approaches the speed of light, and this asymptote is not determined by how much you prayed the day earlier.

So how can prayer work?  How can God give you that front-row parking spot, or help you recover from a disease beyond placebo, when the universe is from all evidence deterministic?  There's no room in any particle or energy interactions for God to intervene.  Unless, of course, if you assert that he does his magic subtly when nobody is looking! 

[MFA]

Let's ignore the question of past events such as the origin of the universe, and ongoing, long term events such as Evolution for once.

Look at current phenomena; the fundamental forces, quantum mechanics, radioactive decay, fluid flow, general relativity, etc.  For most of these subjects we have crafted equations to describe and predict interactions under most circumstances.  And never, never once, have we ever included a "god variable".  That is, F = ma, not F = ma + the sin of the sinner being pushed.  Your relative mass approaches an asymptote as your velocity approaches the speed of light, and this asymptote is not determined by how much you prayed the day earlier.

So how can prayer work?  How can God give you that front-row parking spot, or help you recover from a disease beyond placebo, when the universe is from all evidence deterministic?  There's no room in any particle or energy interactions for God to intervene.  Unless, of course, if you assert that he does his magic subtly when nobody is looking!

I had this kind of argument with an atheist friend on another board.  He suggested a thought experiment to "test prayer."  Create a machine that manufactures widgets.  The machine predictable.  It operates according to sound scientific and mechanical principles.  You can set the machine to create 100 identical widgets and it will produce them, all of them, regardless of any prayer to the contrary.  You cannot change the actions of the machine through prayer.  It will do what is expected of it.

My response was this:

Someone prays, and after 99 successful widgets produced, the machine jams.  The Christian says, look!  Prayer did that!  And the skeptic says, no, look, a mouse chewed through the power line stopping the machine and killing the mouse.  A completely naturalistic (deterministic?) answer.  It wasn't prayer.

See, that's the problem.  If God operates in our universe, he is not constrained by the laws of our universe but his actions look like "coincidence" after the fact.  I once heard someone say, answered prayer is just coincidence; the funny thing is that the more I pray, the more coincidences I experience.

But regardless of all the physical laws you appeal to, quantum mechanics allows for low-probability phenomena that still allow for "anything to happen."

[Sci Fi Fan]

Someone prays, and after 99 successful widgets produced, the machine jams.  The Christian says, look!  Prayer did that!  And the skeptic says, no, look, a mouse chewed through the power line stopping the machine and killing the mouse.  A completely naturalistic (deterministic?) answer.  It wasn't prayer.

See, that's the problem.  If God operates in our universe, he is not constrained by the laws of our universe but his actions look like "coincidence" after the fact.

We know it really is a coincidence because the actions of the mouse, for example, can be reduced to deterministic mechanics that have no conscious connection with your thoughts or desires.  So it would have happened regardless of what you were thinking at the time.  To suggest otherwise would be to deny one of the fundamental observed properties of the universe, indeed one that religious apologists frequently cite as evidence for a creator.

I once heard someone say, answered prayer is just coincidence; the funny thing is that the more I pray, the more coincidences I experience.

Confirmation bias, I'm sure devout Hindus and Muslims believe the same thing.

But regardless of all the physical laws you appeal to, quantum mechanics allows for low-probability phenomena that still allow for "anything to happen."

Quantum mechanics is still deterministically probabilistic, in that if you repeat an experiment X amount of times you get a very consistent distribution of results - still no room for conscious manipulation.  And if God's power is limited to occasional subatomic manipulations...how is he getting you that parking spot?

[MFA]

We know it really is a coincidence because the actions of the mouse, for example, can be reduced to deterministic mechanics that have no conscious connection with your thoughts or desires.  So it would have happened regardless of what you were thinking at the time.  To suggest otherwise would be to deny one of the fundamental observed properties of the universe, indeed one that religious apologists frequently cite as evidence for a creator.

Well, see, that's the point.  If the predictions of deterministic mechanics turn out to be "wrong" or "unexpected," they are explained away through further deterministic mechanics.  If God operates through "non-obvious means" it wouldn't be possible for you to recognize it, would it?

Let me turn that into a more direct question--if God operated through "non-obvious means" how could a skeptic ever recognize it?

Confirmation bias, I'm sure devout Hindus and Muslims believe the same thing.

Or not.

Quantum mechanics is still deterministically probabilistic, in that if you repeat an experiment X amount of times you get a very consistent distribution of results - still no room for conscious manipulation.  And if God's power is limited to occasional subatomic manipulations...how is he getting you that parking spot?

I guess that's irrelevant at this point, isn't it, since no prediction is absolute or certain...right?

[Sci Fi Fan]

Well, see, that's the point.  If the predictions of deterministic mechanics turn out to be "wrong" or "unexpected," they are explained away through further deterministic mechanics.  If God operates through "non-obvious means" it wouldn't be possible for you to recognize it, would it?

Let me turn that into a more direct question--if God operated through "non-obvious means" how could a skeptic ever recognize it?

So again, are you suggesting that God alters physical interactions decidedly deterministic when nobody is looking?

Or not.

Come on now.  You don't believe devout Muslims don't feel that their prayers are heard?  I don't think personal anecdotes prove much here.

I guess that's irrelevant at this point, isn't it, since no prediction is absolute or certain...right?

You could argue that, but "not absolute" could still mean "99.999% certainty", which we have narrowed some predictions down to.

[MFA]

So again, are you suggesting that God alters physical interactions decidedly deterministic when nobody is looking?

I'm saying that if/when God acts, he certainly does it "when nobody is looking."  To do otherwise would be to set himself up for manipulation.

Come on now.  You don't believe devout Muslims don't feel that their prayers are heard?  I don't think personal anecdotes prove much here.

I think there's a problem with your basic definition of "prayer" (which many Christians fall for as well), namely, getting what you want by saying the right words in the right order.

You could argue that, but "not absolute" could still mean "99.999% certainty", which we have narrowed some predictions down to.

So what's the point?  If a batter bats .357 for the season, that describes what he has done, not what he will do.  Statistics are descriptive, not predictive.  In fact, this is how many new scientific discoveries are made--when observed phenomena do not behave as predicted and a new hypothesis is formulated.  The "true miracle" cannot be predicted.

[Sci Fi Fan]

I'm saying that if/when God acts, he certainly does it "when nobody is looking."  To do otherwise would be to set himself up for manipulation.

I can recognize quite a few loopholes in this conclusion.  Could enemies of God not then employ frequent observation and surveillance to narrow the range of what God can do when nobody is looking, and therefore inhibit his abilities?  After all it seems that God conveniently stepped back on his miracles when we got the movable printing press, and pretty much stopped altogether with modern science beyond random, vague incidents from all varieties of faiths.

I think there's a problem with your basic definition of "prayer" (which many Christians fall for as well), namely, getting what you want by saying the right words in the right order.

Whatever the reason is, there's no evidence it works, and no reason for it to work in a deterministic universe.  I mean, besides, if God has a divine plan, what's the purpose of prayer anyway?  Doesn't he already know what you want and don't want, and what you deserve and don't deserve, and what you will want and will deserve?

Statistics are descriptive, not predictive.

What are you talking about...we use scientific theories and laws, all based technically on the probability problem you define for empiricism, every day in all facets of life to predict phenomena.  You'd still be living in a straw hut shoveling snow with your bare hands otherwise.  In what universe do you think science is not predictive?

[MFA]

I can recognize quite a few loopholes in this conclusion.  Could enemies of God not then employ frequent observation and surveillance to narrow the range of what God can do when nobody is looking, and therefore inhibit his abilities?  After all it seems that God conveniently stepped back on his miracles when we got the movable printing press, and pretty much stopped altogether with modern science beyond random, vague incidents from all varieties of faiths.

Not really.

Whatever the reason is, there's no evidence it works, and no reason for it to work in a deterministic universe.  I mean, besides, if God has a divine plan, what's the purpose of prayer anyway?  Doesn't he already know what you want and don't want, and what you deserve and don't deserve, and what you will want and will deserve?

There's "no evidence it works"?  You haven't addressed the purpose of prayer.  If you don't understand its purpose, how could you possibly know whether or not "it works"?

What are you talking about...we use scientific theories and laws, all based technically on the probability problem you define for empiricism, every day in all facets of life to predict phenomena.  You'd still be living in a straw hut shoveling snow with your bare hands otherwise.  In what universe do you think science is not predictive?

It would be helpful if you responded to what I posted.  I didn't say science is not predictive.  I said statistics are not predictive.

Consider a thought experiment.  There is 90% P.O.P. tomorrow.  Will it rain?  Yes, or no?  If it doesn't, it's part of the 10%.  If it does, it's part of the 90%.  Statistics cannot predict whether or not it will or will not rain or not.  After the fact, we know.  And we can see whether we got the 90% or the 10%.

If a phenomenon is 99.999% certain, and it doesn't happen, well that's just the 0.001% anomaly.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Not really.

Were you just too lazy to type more than two words here?

There's "no evidence it works"?  You haven't addressed the purpose of prayer.  If you don't understand its purpose, how could you possibly know whether or not "it works"?

Fine then.  Tell me what you think the purpose of prayer is, and provide evidence that it is effective.

It would be helpful if you responded to what I posted.  I didn't say science is not predictive.  I said statistics are not predictive.

Statistics are not predictive?

Consider a thought experiment.  There is 90% P.O.P. tomorrow.  Will it rain?  Yes, or no?  If it doesn't, it's part of the 10%.  If it does, it's part of the 90%.  Statistics cannot predict whether or not it will or will not rain or not.  After the fact, we know.  And we can see whether we got the 90% or the 10%.

It cannot make predictions with no margin of error.  That does not mean it does not make predictions...why do you think we study statistics if not to make predictions?   

If a phenomenon is 99.999% certain, and it doesn't happen, well that's just the 0.001% anomaly.

If such statistics were based on induction, then a large sample set showing more of a 60% certainty would indeed suggest that the "99.999%" prediction was inaccurate.

[kit saginaw]

Prayer was already figured-in before God scattered the atoms.