The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)

Holmes,I found your post one of the best stream of consciousness displays of a pondering mind I have ever read. As they say in the Guiness commercials, "Brilliant!"No doubt I am impressed because I find your reasoning irresistable, and myself in agreement. You set out most clearly the need for clearly defined, defensible methods, for getting at the truth. Here are, I think, our main points of agreement:Authorities might be useful for deciding to explore idea A over idea B. But, they are never the last word.That an idea "works" reflects some truth to it, but that truth could reflect something either good or bad, useful or warning.Life is good, death is bad. Truth, either useful or warning, is good, life-enhancing. Lies, deception, murder (duh) is bad. I think, too, that we agree that "death" cannot simply mean the end of a single organism's living, but must mean some sort of long term finality. The death of individuals that preserve the species (e.g. salmon that kill themselves getting to the breeding grounds) is still good. Extinction type death is bad, for sure.My own struggle to deal with what to believe, which I sense you agreeing with, is first to affirm life and living. In the end, any given method for getting to the truth, that produces truth that enhances life, is to be chosen over other methods. In your example with Tarot Cards, for example, the cards told you the future, but was the information useful for enhancing life? I rejected Horoscopes because, although they often "worked" in some sense, I felt my life slipping away as I got the knowledge they provided.Some knowledge distracts, other helps.Trustworthy authorities, as I have described them, are mostly fruitful and humble. Intelligence counts for a little. Love, self-control, being understanding, having followers or children that are happy and prospering, these things count for more.But I also get a lot out of art. "Truth is beauty, beauty truth." No conclusions, of course, but encouragement to pursue an idea. The Messiah by Handel is so wonderful, it energizes my study of orthodox theology and the Bible.These things behind me, I have studied the scientific method diligently. Popper, Polanyi, Lakatose, Bayes, Tricker, Urbach, Toulmin, Kuhn being main sorts of inspiration. Which sets of scientific rules have "worked" and still "work" (as described above) the best? The Hypothetico-deductive method, working under strong inference, evaluated by Bayes Theorem has so far emerged as the best set of rules to follow. Applying this method to orthodox theology as a scientific hypothesis has generated consistent confirmation, and both intuitively and objectively raised the plausibility of that hypothesis to very high levels.Note how OT presents the evil genius problem. First, OT declares that the universe must be viewed as the creation of a tight group, that works as a single personality. An essential purpose of that creation is to produce other personalities (both angelic and human) with free will, to see what these will choose. Angels have used, and are using, this free will to choose evil as defined above, tactically hating the Creator. Humans, made in the image of the creator, become vulnerable to these evil angels. The angels are so much smarter and more powerful than humans, that they constitute an "evil genius" in the sense of Descartes, in human epistemology. The human condition thus becomes hopeless, unless there is intervention by the Creator (a "benign genius", to both angels and humans). We can do nothing without God, but with God, we can do "anything." The Creator has provided a written guide (the Bible) on how to interact with Him, to overcome, epistemologically, the "evil genius." This Bible warns us that the evil genius will mostly try to deceive us through something called religion, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which will always be with us, to choose or reject.Now, I am taking all that for the sake of testing scientifically, and look at studies of prayer, bible codes, near-death experiences as efforts to confirm what we would expect or not, given the OT hypothesis to be true. Do confirmations prove OT? Well, Witztum's bible codes studies are powerful, really putting OT beyond reasonable doubt. But they are only science. Newton's theories were once beyond reasonable doubt. That means that they are useful, but maybe not so exactly true.Finally, history also confirms OT, in the sense that there is a strong correlation between non-hypocritical biblical involvement in a culture, and its prosperity.But, the directions of the Bible are this: Only by asking God to speak to you directly can you have confidence that you know the truth. And, God will only speak to you directly if you "keep His commandments." Thus, Yeshua's epistemological summary is, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Free from the "evil genius."Epistemologically, once we grant that OT could be true, we are obliged to follow, for the sake of testing, it's demands to see if our life improves, to see if we prosper. Otherwise, we might be under the sway of the evil genius, deceived. If we do what the "materials and methods" of the bible say, and experience no increase in prosperity (as defined by OT--clear conscience, love, health, joy, honor, freedom from fear, etc.), then we have evidence that OT is false. We have to hope that this means, at least, that the evil genius does not exist, is not out there to be dealt with.At least, this is how I have dealt with the questions you have raised. And my experience has been generally confirming. When I tithed, I did experience an outpouring of various blessings. When I did seek God, I found Him. When I asked Him to speak to me about how to obey certain commandments, I heard His voice, and received faith. When I prayed as He told me to pray, amazing, miraculous things happened.But let me address a few of your remarks specifically. As God presents Himself in Scripture, He says that He never creates victims. He says that He has always given everyone a way out of every trauma, abuse, horror, a way to overcome evil with good. He is the ultimate empowerer of persons. So, when we are overcome with evil, the evil is still evil, and God repeatedly affirms that He will deal vengefully and justly with evil. But we didn't have to be overcome; if we had been diligent learning how to overcome evil with good, we could have escaped the evil. Or at least, turned it to good.He makes it clear that we are in a war, and some suffering is the lot of everyone. Suffering that generates good is not to be regretted. Witness the suffering of women in childbirth.Of course, I puzzle over children who suffer abuse, who have not had the age or resources to learn how to overcome evil with good. I hope that there is some grace to cover those situations. I have heard of certain saints, being burned at the stake, who were aware that they were accomplishing some good, and took their suffering as a woman takes the suffering of childbirth, without regrets. And, I have prayed with adults reliving childhood abuse, who came to see that abuse in the same light.But, evil-doers that get away with their foul plans because we failed to pray, or leave, or do what we could to foil them, are still evil. We bear some responsibility, but blame is too narrow a word. Yes. God calls our worse deeds "abominations" meaning ab- hominations, flights from humane-ness.But the evil genius is constantly trying to muddy our understanding of what being human is all about. Trying to confuse pain (good, a warning of danger) and hurt (bad, damage to our life), carnal or temporal life and eternal life, being comfortable and at peace, freedom with responsibility and power with control, fame and love, etc. But, if we study "man," his niche, biology, attributes, ecology, we dodge these lies.I appreciate, for example, the way our human social interaction makes me think more clearly. Makes me more human.Hope your humanity prospers as well.Stephen

Holmes,You ask, Jehovah, as described in Job, has Satan on a leash. He can do certain things, but not others. The Bible only seems to fit my description of how Satan would deceive us, because the Bible gets a lot of confusing press from religionists. For example, it is fairly clear in Scripture that anyone calling themselves Christian, or who says that they "go to church", who every uses the term "my church" or "kids" is a tare, a false "believer" a son of Satan, a liar, doomed to Hell. Scriptures stating this are normally hidden from bible studies in "Christian" churches, for obvious reasons.But, if you read the Scriptures with intellectual integrity, you see at once that they only point to hearing Jehovah or Yeshua speak, and doing everything you do because of what comes out of His mouth, not what is written. Except the written statement that you must not do or believe anything because the "bible told me so" except get into God's presence and do what He says. They also advise you on how to know it is Him speaking, and not some demon spirit.About Job.Job proves the above point most clearly. At the end of his trial, Job says, "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you. Therefore, I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes." See, Job was righteous by the knowledge of good and evil, not walking in Jehovah's presence. And, evil came upon him. When evil comes onto me, I run right away into Jehovah's presence, and ask what's up? Then, if some sort of test is underway, I get involved in the decision to do it. Sometimes I choose to endure, sometimes I choose to ask to be delivered from evil. But, either way, I am empowered to overcome evil with good. To test the scriptures, to see whether they are true, I went through them and pulled up every statement where Jehovah calls something good. Then, I went about seeing whether by prayer I got more of those things. Stuff like justice, mercy, hearing God's voice. Later, more complex issues I handle by talking to Jehovah directly. Hear, hear! They are clear historical evidence that biblical principles generate some sort of "good." The Calvinistic Swiss are a K-selected example. But, both appear to me to be vulnerable to the standard disasters of history. The Amish are vulnerable to invasions from evil war-liking marauders. And the Swiss have begun the downward moral slide that historically has always led to revolutions and chaos. They both should learn from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and start getting more prophetic leadership.Stephen

schrafinator,You ask, Science began as "natural philosophy" and evolution was originally proposed as an answer to the theologically relevant question, "Are species immutable?" If we are created beings, our purpose or meaning in life is determined by our creator. This "creator" is proposed to be a god, named Jehovah, who sets before us the scientific challenge (Malachi 3:10) "prove Me now in this." setting up an experimental proceedure that we can use to prove or disprove Him. His "creator's manuel," the Bible, is full of directions for a scientific method, one which has been independently proven by historians and philosophers of science to be very, probably most, effective. The first post in this thread answers this question. These methods were used to predict and find statistically improbable Bible Codes, for example, validating the claim to supernatural authorship to at least part of the Bible. I am saying that because you have not examined all evidence, you cannot state that evidence that might refute your point does not exist. You can state that, to your knowledge, you are unaware of any such evidence. But, as some is brought to your attention, you ought to fairly examine it according to scientific standards (Did the study follow sound scientific methodology? Can it be replicated? Has evidence been ignored that does not confirm stated predictions from the hypothesis being tested? Are the predictions tested a priori implausible? Are they contradictory to, or consistent with competing theories?)The absence of "perfect knowledge" does limit our dogmatism and arrogance. We are forced into statements of plausibility, and away from statements of certainty. The Bible Codes studies of Witztum and his colleagues, including Gans' discussion of the embarrasing efforts of critics to squirm out from under the implications of these studies, are plenty of evidence of God. But, you can also read Ivan Panin's works, Del Washburn's Theomatics, or prayer studies (those of Harold Koenig at Duke, or Larry Dossey's summaries are good.) I have described in many postings here personal experiments. Since knowledge of God is a personal matter, I regard any reticence on evolutionist's part to personally collect such evidence in their own experience as an example of injustice and hypocrisy.Not, therefore, the best science.

Holmes,
Your summary statement,What's worse this seems to all keep coming down to me having to believe you are actually talking to God in order to get "data". If it were strictly prayer=result, there may be something, but it seems tied in with your contacts outside the experiment as well. Like maybe there was an inconsistency, but you talked with God and got his answer. How am I supposed to believe you over someone else saying the same thing (but giving a different explanation)?[/qs]says it all! If the Amish talk to God, He will keep them out of trouble, just as He would have kept Job out of trouble, if Job had bothered to deal with Him face to face. Troubled by what I am hearing? Ask God yourself. It's the whole point of the Bible, to hearken to His voice, to settle all matters. Hence, to scientifically test the bible, you have to do what it says, hearken to His voice. And keep His commandments. Ideally, the two at once. ("Jehovah, you say to choose life. Now, what do I do to do that?") Are Xians lost? Ask God. Or, ask them if they "walk with Him, and talk with Him, and He tells them they are His own." Ask them what He has commanded, and what He has told them about it. You'll see. Or do both. Want to avoid problems? Pray (listen!) without ceasing. Hey, He never leaves nor forsakes you. Just stay in real close touch. "You going to test me today, Lord? Now please don't do that. You need me to change or learn something, you got my attention right now, you don't need to sic Satan on me to wake me up." Then listen.It has to be done this way, according to Scripture, and really no other mandate in Scripture is compelling without doing this first. So, to test the Bible, and see it's promises confirmed in practise, the main answer is, ask God directly.Stephen [qs]

Nosyned,You ask, Hey, it's Jehovah's idea! Read Malachi 3:10. If we are going to do the doubting Thomas thing, let's do it! God would prefer, perhaps, that we just take Him at His word, but if we need data, let's go get it. The Bible Codes are the best, although Del Washburn's statistics are almost as small. Panin's stuff is easiest to see, and the prayer experiments the most useful. On a personal level, the titheing experiment of Mal 3:10 is always impressive. It might be possible to set that up experimentally as well.But, anyone who is in science for the truth, (as opposed to Kuhn paradigm maintainers) who looks at the data and says, "Ok, I need to change my mind." will get the picture.

Nosyned,My doctoral training was at NC State, Department of Experimental Statistics. The emphasis for me, though, was the application of statistical thinking to the philosophy of science, modelling, etc. But the Bible Codes controversy is not that complex, since some of the tests were Monte Carlo, where the null hypothesis (codes appear at random in a sufficiently long text) produces a distribution through looking at repeated computer generated randomization of letters and words. One main statistic is the size of the text where two minimal coded messages occur. Thus, in 1000 or so randomizations, of the given text (where the letters or words of Genesis are scrambled), each one generates a block of text where both the minimal coded name of a Rabbi was found, and the city where he was born. The distribution of such blocks of texts is the control. Then the same is done with the real text of Genesis. Let's say that the latter block is the second smallest of all the 1001 texts looked at (1000 random, one as written.) Now repeat this for 80 Rabbis and their cities. The rank orders of the natural text blocks were consistently much smaller than the average for the random texts. In each case, there is a probability of getting a text so small (one in 500 in the first example), but when the 80 are combined, the probability of so many being so small is negligible.Now, they did a test comparing with some other text, War and Peace I think, just in case the scrambling did something to sentence structure or grammar, that was generating the codes. Again, a significantly smaller block size in Genesis.The Moby Dick comparison really doesn't do any of these statistical tests, or when they do with Genesis, they also get statistically significant differences. But, by fiddling with the data, they were able to get something that might have been improbable codes in Moby Dick. So, they accused the original authors of fiddling with their data, although those authers had been meticulous in protecting themselves from doing so. The critics lied, in some cases, about what the original authors had done, and could document they had done in generating this protection. Gans presents documents proving these lies. The critics also did not allow the original authors to peer review their (the critics) paper, nor did they allow rebuttal to be published. Finally, the critics replicated the original study, and confirmed it's findings, attributing this to fiddling, however. While all this was going on, dozens of other replications, on other codes besides rabbis' names and birth places, were appearing, using similar statistical testing and confirming the phenomenon.You have to view this in the context of the history of science. Every paradigm breaking study gets the sort of treatment we see coming from the critics and the wider scientific community. You cannot use such argument to decide one way or the other. If anything, the fact that they protest so much tends to support the finding.But look at Bible Code Digest.com - Home Page [Bible Code Digest] and search on Moby Dick. Or search at Doron Witztum's website, reading the review of Harold Gans of the criticism. It's worth the study. The popularizers are right about one thing. This study changes everything about our culture and science.By the way, about your Christian friends. If you agree that hypocrisy is a fatal intellectual flaw, you come to expect little wisdom from most Christians. Official Believers, according to Scripture, are usually liars. The test is, if you ask them what Jehovah or Yeshua commanded, and how those commands are to be obeyed, you get really fuzzy, or no, answers. This in spite of the fact that the "Great Commission" of the Christians contains the command, "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Yeshua) have commanded you." There's no other directive from Yeshua about teaching in the church, but you'll look long and hard for a church that teaches on the commandments. The commandments of Yeshua to His disciples, that is. I have never met a single church-going Christian who even had any idea how many commandments Yeshua gave. Few can define the term, or recognize a commandment from Yeshua when they see one in scripture. The bible code confirmed bible warns to beware the arguments ("leaven") of such people.PS. Thomas Bayes developed a mathematical statement of common sense, now called Bayes Theorem. It allows you to practise common sense when it's not so common, and a bit obscure.Stephen

Holmes,I'll go back later, to deal with more of your last post if you like. Especially since there is confusion. But for now, you said: The Amish, as we have noted, make a strong effort to live lives according to some biblical precepts. Now, it confirms the idea that the bible is a supernaturally written document guiding lesser, created beings, when any effort to see if those guidelines produce a good fruitful life succeeds. We can add these historical reports to the scientific studies, to increase our confidence in the idea of supernatural writing and protection of the book.But, to evaluate that history correctly, we need to examine the biblical standards closely and how they are being adhered to. In this case, we have a clear biblical stress on the importance of "hallowed by Thy name." The Amish are claiming to be under the blood of Yeshua, and ought to be under New Testament standards. Some they keep, and appear to be blessed for it. Others, and some are serious, they break. The most impressive is calling themselves Amish (or Mennonite). There are strict biblical injunctions against doing this, because it causes divisions, as has happened with these "plain" people. Thus, we can expect some sort of breakdown with the prosperity of these people. They will reap what they sow, both good and bad.Now, their dogmatic pacifist stand is also unbiblical. Yeshua told his maturer disciples to carry a sword. The Calvinistic Swiss, obeying other NT principles and also blessed, obey this notion, and have received a blessing for it.Well, there are a lot of principles. Not so many we really would have trouble with them, actually. Look at the tomes of laws we live under, generally ignoring biblical law! But, anyway, the problem for us is to note confirmation of whatever obedience we find, and to not be surprized when there is judgment for disobedience. We compare Albania with Switzerland, one atheistic the other Calvinistic, and behold, a confirmation that the Bible is from a creator telling us how to live so that we prosper. As one who ought to know.Now, the central theme of the Bible is hearing God's voice and walking not according to these principles alone, but with Jehovah's or Yeshua's counsel. And, a central theme of the NT is that mistakes, disobedience, need not have serious consequences, if admitted and repented of. As God directs. Here's a relevant story.The church in Armenia, the oldest church in Christianity, so I've heard, had grown stale and lukewarm. It was 1850. Prophets were sent by Jehovah from Russia to stir things up. Some in Armenia listened, most didn't. Then a lad, illiterate, disappeared for several days. When he returned, he had a map showing the way to Southern California, and a message saying that God had had it with the luke-warmness, and that the Armenian Christians were going to have to leave and go to California. If they didn't go, they would be killed. It all seemed miraculous to the believers, and cooked up to the skeptics. Anyway, the message said to get ready, and another message would come when it was time to go. That message came in early 1900, and many Armenian Christians came to California. They prospered in many ways, and started the fundamentalist revival of the last century here, having repented of luke-warmness. But most were skeptical, and stayed in Armenia, and were killed by the Turks in the genocide that inspired Hitler.All consistent with the Bible, as a supernatural document. You have to hear God, even if only in the form of a prophet, and repent with fruits appropriate to your repentance, and He will save you. Or so it is written.Now, ad hoc reasoning has a place in the Lakatosian Research Programmes, and is useful if protected by deductive predictions. Generally, in the histories of the Amish, the Swiss, the Albanians, and the Armenians, we see a confirmation of our main thesis, without too much ad hoc reasoning. But that only sends us deeper into the Scriptures, to see what they really say, and what we can predict about history. We find that, consistent with the priorities set out in scripture by God, peace-loving Amish could well be invaded and killed in some sort of genocide. Their current prosperity, while reflecting and confirming some scriptural validity, does not necessarily prove they are doing more important things, as Jehovah has written the book.You note: No, God was not about to help Job out at all. But, if Job had come running into His presence at the beginning, God might well have changed His mind and told Satan to get lost. After all, it appears that was what God wanted after all, and as soon as He got it, He stopped the test. Note that, in the beginning, Satan was coming around, but not Job. If Job had been there at the meeting, he might have stopped the whole thing short. My assertion is that if you do ask, part of the request is for Jehovah to make it clear that it is He, not Vishu or Zeus that is speaking. As to "praying amiss" (the quotes from scripture), it is possible, or so it is written. Try listening to God, instead of talking to Him. Ask to hear, ask for a hearing ear, and information that persuades you who is talking. Typically, the best way to begin hearing is to ask God to talk about something He likes, such as one of His commandments. Try "Choose life." Ask, "Now, how should I do that?" Or more simply, "Do you want me to choose life?" There's a commandment about "Let your yes be yes, and your no, no." Keeping His own commandment, He likes questions that have a yes/no answer. Many who hear God begin by hearing Him say, "Yes."Also, if the voice sounds familiar, that's typical. In Samuel's first experience, he actually thought Eli was calling him. Don't be in a hurry to believe. Consider, when a "yes" appears in your mind, that maybe that was God. You can ask, "Was that You?" Then, if doubts still haunt you, "How can I know for sure?" Faith comes from hearing, but sometimes it takes some time, the maybes slowly turning to probablies. The evolutionists taught us that's Jehovah's style, good on 'em.Look also for dreams, strangely coincidental readings popping out of books, people saying improbable things. Just keep asking, "Was that You? How can I know?"All your years of experience have taught you, I think, that this approach is the way the world is, the way evidently it was created to be. Slow and steady wins the race.Just remember: the bottom line of scripture is hearkening to His voice to keep and do His commandments. He says clearly that He won't answer if you turn away from keeping His law. You can find a law you agree is good. Do it, bring it up, ask about it.I eagerly await the results of your next trial run.Stephen

Holmes,Recall the first posts in this thread, as the foundation of my argument. The hypothetico-deductive scientific method seems to work the best, and best fits with common sense. You take an idea, believe it temporarily for the sake of testing, see if implausible predictions from it are confirmed. If so, increase your estimate of the plausibility of the idea. Now, to your questions. You would have to do what I did. Take their holy texts, and read them to see what they advise. Then, compare cultures for the degree to which they adhere to that advice. Then, measure the prosperity of each culture, as predicted by the holy text. If any text is consistently confirmed, in the sense that it's predictions of the sort, "If you do X, you will get Y." then that confirms that someone very wise wrote the text, and its ontological statements ("This is the way the universe is put together.") more credible. Yes, anything that happens to the Amish is evidence of some kind, either for or against the credibility of the Bible. To evaluate that evidence, we have to know what the Bible says. Thus, the Yeshua in the Bible says to carry a sword, but use it sparingly if at all. It warns that living by the sword will result in dying by the sword. But, as the Prince of Peace is giving these directives, we can readily expect what the Swiss have found: to be armed and ready if reluctant to fight at all times, as commanded by Yeshua, produces the most peaceful culture on earth. The Amish rebellion ("We will never carry a sword, so we are not even going to ask you, Lord, whether it would be wise or no."), is predicted to generate problems.If someone tithes, and does not report or experience an "opening of the windows of heaven." or Seeks the Lord as He commands us in Scripture to seek Him, but without success, then we have evidence that the Bible is not what it says it is. Any culture that tries to live by the knowledge of good and evil in the bible is predicted to confirm that the knowledge of good and evil is accurate, but also to confirm that living by such knowledge, instead of "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" leads to death. The predictions of the Bible include for both the righteous and the wicked, a mixture of prosperity and problems. But that mixture is predicted to vary in discernable ways, so that with understanding of these things, one can see whether there is confirmation or not. Not exactly. I actually read the bible carefully, as a manual of materials and methods for knowing whether Jehovah is really out there. From this, and my own experience with science, I then looked at evidence from Ivan Panin, Del Washburn, Doron Witztum, and others doing prayer experiments, and found confirmation that the Bible is what it says it is. I then replicated as best I could these and other experiments, especially the ones that are given in the Bible for testing whether the book is credible: tithing experiments, for example, or seeking the voice of God as directed there. These experiments were also confirming. There are few reports of anyone doing what they are told must be done, and getting negative results, actually none that I know of. The negative reports normally demonstrate that they did not follow the specified protocols. But, examining such reports is an ongoing process. I still believe that following these scientific proceedures will bring us all closer to something that I call the truth, which is a statement about the Bible from which every logical deduction will be confirmed.It is a strain that the book, and its putative Author, are so complex. But, that's what being smart and inquisitive is all about. Confusion about what the book actually says, and disagreements, can all be worked out through well regulated debates, I believe. The biblical conflicts of history, I believe, can all be traced to hypocritical and dogmatic argumentation. Ad hoc reasoning is useful in the following scenario. You take a theory, make predictions from it, which are partially confirmed, but there are some unexpected twists. You modify the theory, coming up with a new version, that is similar to the original, retaining most or all of its postulates, but adding some others that would account for the unexpected twists. This is ad hoc, and does nothing to increase the credibility of the original postulates, or the new ones. So, you have to take this revised theory, make predictions from it, and see if they are confirmed. If so, the new theory is regarded as more plausible. This is called a research program by a philosopher/historian of science called Lakatose. In this way, according to Bayes Theory, if strong inference is used in deciding which predictions to test, one developes a theory the deductions of which are almost always confirmed. That is, a theory you can safely bet your life on. The common interpretation of the Bible steals away its message, and this is intentional and predicted by the bible. Recall that the bible postulates an evil genius, deceiving, if he could, even the elect (a few souls), and certainly deceiving the masses going down the broad way to destruction. It makes no sense at all to ever accept the common interpretation of the Bible. If the bible is to be useful at all, that interpretation has to be wrong. To maintain intellectual integrity in examining the Bible, you have to carefully get the message yourself, normally talking to God Himself about what He is trying to say there. If you end up with the common interpretation, I would take that as evidence that the whole book is incredible. At least internally inconsistent. "He has told you, Oh, man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you! But to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." Yes, Job learned that hearing about God was not good enough. He needed to be in His presence, if he wanted to forestall problems with the devil. "Give us this day, our daily bread,...and do not bring us to the test, but deliver us from evil." Clearly a prayer to be prayed every day. And, "Walk prudently when you go to the house of God, and draw near to hear rather than give the sacrifice of fools." But the devil's slaughter of these others was not unjust. Technically, these people were the devil's property, much as a steer might be your property. God by grace restrains the devil from doing what he justly might, usually as people ask in prayer. But Job said that he knew that "his redeemer lived." that the purchase of his soul and the souls of those he prayed for was to be accomplished in time, and could be appropriated even in his lifetime. But grace trumps justice, it doesn't make it injustice.Moreover, when the prophets asked Jehovah what happened to Job's children, they got this response. Everything else Job lost was restored to him two fold, but not his children. Because, although they died prematurely, they lived on in heaven, where it matters. Thus, Job would spend eternity with them, and with the new children he got, a two-fold increase. Everyone dies, one way or another. If God is good to someone, their death is useful, generating treasure in heaven. Not to be regretted. I think I dealt with this above. The obvious message throughout the bible is that we live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, and that private interpretation of scripture is forbidden. So, I learn to hear His voice, and then ask Him what happened in Job. I report this, noting passages usually ignored that confirm what I am hearing. This differs from the many speculators, and the "obvious" interpretation, as predicted by the bible. (It is the glory of God to conceal a matter. It is the glory of kings to search out a matter.) So, the bible remains confirmed. A person of another faith has to justify the idea that their god will talk to them, with holy writings or prophecy or something. Actually, I would say that this works everywhere, based on our historical experience with this applied epistemology. But every theological hypothesis will have its own ontology, from which predictions should be made. As these ontologies differ in mutually exclusive ways, we ought to be able to find contrasting predictions to confirm some and reject others. You have to temporarily convert, for the sake of testing, to see if conversion has its prediced outcomes. If you convert, but fail to see those outcomes, you can un-convert. That's how H-D science works. You cannot do a prayer experiment without praying, and prayer normally works through faith or belief. So, you do the best you can to add these ingredients into your experiment. But, if nothing happens, you report this. If others find success, you get your heads together to see why they are finding one thing and you another, when you are both following the same protocol.I don't really see any other honorable way to approach the creation/evolution question scientifically. The creationist hypothesis, as extracted from the Bible, demands that it be tested this way. Strong inference and H-D methodology demands that scientists work this way.Stephen

Holmes,Now I'm not getting your point. Let's say there are two commandments, one promising reward X if obeyed, the other Y. There is also X' punishment for disobeying commandment 1, and Y' punishment for disobeying commandment 2. Group A keeps commandment 1, but disobeys commandment 2. Group B reverses this pattern. So we predict A manifests reward X, and punishment Y'. Group B gets reward Y and punishment X'. We watch their histories, and see the predicted pattern of rewards and punishments. The wisdom of the source of the commandments is confirmed scientifically. Right?I believe, incidently, that most religions have got something right. The question is, what rewards are you going for? It was an accident, sort of, that I picked on the Bible--creationists in my evolution class were waving it in my face. But, as a naturalist, I liked the coherence between biblical and evolutionary fitness. Both rewarded with similar rewards, at least in the natural: love, children, peace of mind, happiness, freedom, lack of interest in fame, money, political power, egotistical stuff, keep up with Jones's type stuff.More later,Stephen

Holmes,This quote from you, I believe demonstrates why what I am saying is confusing to you. Of course that is what I am trying to do. That's what science always does, and in this case, we are scientifically trying to know a Person who is defined as being infinitely complex. Thus, whatever ideas we get scientifically are always in progress, and we expect and hope to modify them as we get more evidence. Moreover, no matter how well we know God, He will always be full of surprizes.Now, you must not usually think of science this way, or you would not have asked that question. Your experimental constraints are good where possible, but certainly not essential. Or was the measurement of light bending around the eclipsed sun bad science?As to how God responds to prayer, what He does, well that's a good question, but in no way essential to finding it plausible that He did something that worked. I certainly do not need to know everything about God to know that He is out there, and responsive to my prayers. Does my failure to know and confirm these mechanisms weaken the effect of prayer experiments, or historical correlations, on the plausibility of the hypothesis that He is, indeed, out there. Yeah, sure, but who cares? That plausibility has so many different boosts from other studies, that it hardly needs the historical correlations. They mostly help in understanding how it all matters.But, anyway, my choice, which has certainly been confirmed to me to be a good one, is to do science this non-dogmatic way.Stephen

Holmes,First, can you state, out loud to yourself or to someone you care about, that you choose with whatever free will you have, to search for the truth by examining ideas with plausibilities ranging from above zero to below one?Second, you state Where have you looked? Read Satinover's book yet? Larry Dossey on prayer studies? Harold Koenig's work? Done a google on scientific studies on prayer, distrusting the critics as diligently as they distrust the findings? Done Jehovah's Malachi 3:10 tithing study yet? Read Del Washburn's works? Ivan Panin's? Googled on NDE studies yet? Looked at the PEAR labs stuff yet? Fasted and prayed for Him to talk to you about His commandments? What are you trying to do here?My purpose here is to alert some who have chosen to live to information that the dis-information experts in our midst are trying to hide or suppress, and to help those who want to live via getting a better understanding of the ontology of this universe, do so. It would be bad epistemology for anyone to get more from a forum or debate than understanding and potentially useful information, that might protect them from making a fatal mistake. That they can use to search out the truth for themselves. But I know that anyone who has chosen to be dogmatic, to hold ideas as "true" or "not true" cannot understand my "might be true" or "holds some truth," now let us estimate how plausible, how much truth. Free will trumps every other human concern. If that's your choice, and it will be unless you state otherwise, we're done here.I refer you to the forum on "debates that matter." We could carry on, if we can get someone to judge the debate.Stephen

Edge,You say, I didn't say EVERY, or even every. I could have said "any" though. The point is to commit to "anything is possible, nothing is certain." I pick ideas to think about scientifically based on trustworthy authority, and inspired art. Not to mention potential usefulness. Or just plain inspiration. My compulsive fascination with the Dickcissel was, in retrospect, based on the authority of God, some sort of weird gift. I have tried to choose and develope that sort of fanaticism on my own, unsuccessfully. But, when I spot it anyone, I tell them to get to work on it, no matter how impractical it seems. And I pray for it to happen again to me.

Holmes,You ask, Yes, it's not true. It's basically inductive, tied too tightly to existing paradigms and mind-sets about reality.There is nothing wrong with the protocols you suggest, only something wrong with saying that because they exist, others that are weaker are wrong. The weaker methods take you places the strong ones cannot, just more slowly than if you were able to use the strong ones. Some, enough to make me very determined to find the best method for getting to the truth. That's how I settled on H-D science, in spite of the fact that, though approved by the majority of philosophers of science, scientists in general do not like H-D scientists. Read the preface to my Populations in a Seasonal Environment, written when I was a rampant evolutionist. MacArthur told me that admitting that I was a H-D scientist was going to cost me many friends. He was right.But, my science was successful.Stephen

Schrafinator,I've looked carefully at both. Have you? Why do you suppose the Biblecodedigest to be biased, and the other not? Why do you trust "sneer" review.As I was trained, the "peer reviewed" article is a fraud, as was the editorial decision to publish it. Gans proves this at Witztum's site, with ample documentation.Ever hear the expression, "That dog don't hunt."? Don't let it apply to you. Nothing wrong with barking, but you need to hunt, as well. And if bias is your concern, you do understand that humans are inevitably biased, you as well as everyone else. It's playing by the H-D scientific method that lets you get to the truth in spite of your biases. The Code critics don't play by the rules, so their bias is killing them and everyone who stumbles over their deception.Stephen

Schrafinator,You say, The original paper was published after eight years of review, in which every one who would or could review it was invited in. The critique was published without asking the most obvious reviewers in to review it. Yes, it was a mistake. I realize that this is a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question, but studies of peer review (Read "Getting into print" in Beth Savan's Science Under Seige, for examples) find it fraught with many difficulties and generally counter-productive for controversial new ideas. The point is, referees do "beat their wives" and reject papers they disagree with, because they disagree with the worldview or paradigm. If reviewers were sent a check-list of methodological flaws, or stuck to deductive problems (provable mathmatically), there wouldn't be so much a problem. As a H-D scientist, I know the rules, and judge accordingly. No matter how I feel about the study.Your sense about BibleCodedigest describes pretty much what I sense about the skeptics sites. But I look at them anyway, to judge for myself. I know how to pick through bias, to separate the precious from the vile. The facts that either present are informative; I don't think either one is intentionally lying. Just being diligent to get facts for me that I might find useful, so that I can make up my own mind. But just listening to one side of a debate, because the other side has a point of view? Sounds pretty opinionated to me.But, my only purpose here is to be sure that you have access to whatever understanding you want to seek out, and to sources of information that you might not encounter otherwise. What you choose to do is on you.