In this circumstance, the easy way out would be to call agnosticism and just say, You can't prove God's existence one way or the other, which is essentially true. However, there are certain phenomena that seem to indicate the existence of a god, if not some other form of higher spiritual entity.
We all know about the placebo effect. This is probably the most common form of faith medicine. If you need a briefing, the placebo effect is when a patient is given a pill or treatment that has no biological or chemical cure, then the patient is told it is a valid treatment, and consequently the patient is cured, presumably by his/her own faith in the cure. There are some arguments to the placebo effect, claiming that the faith only ups the bodies response to the problem and that no actual internal miracle takes place.
For example, say you have frequent headaches, and you go to the doctor about it. He gives you a placebo and tells you take them for your headaches. Then next time you have a headache, you take the pill and are relieved. Basically what happened biologically is that your idea of having a cure made your body increased its pain-blocking chemicals that would detect aching in the region of your head. But the question is WHY. Why doesn't the body naturally secrete the chemicals to numb the pain if it knows it is experiencing pain. Why can't a person cure a headache through bio-feedback, or self hypnosis. Obviously faith has some power over biological functions, and whether this is due to divine intervention is still left to personal opinion.
I don't know if many of you are familiar with this University of Columbia-published article about the power of prayer. But I have a few cites here if you're interested.
the opposing argument
the affirmative argument
the original article
It's a lot or reading, but basically, my point is that the patients recieving the in-vitro fertilization were not informed that they were being prayed for, yet, the outcome of the faith medicine was still a positive one. So in this case it could not have been the power of internal faith-healing alone, as in the placebo effect.
The professionals that stepped down after the publication of this article could either be seen as acquiescing to their shame for participating in a faurdulent study, or as martyrs for their cause. On this I'm not going to take any side, but I will say that, in recent years acting on religion, in the field of science, seems to generate a sort of professional stigma. If these researchers at columbia university hadn't abdicated their positions, they would have been degraded by any atheist colleagues they had (which are probably a majority). Personally, I can't see why science and religion have to be enemies in the world. But it's been a part of our heritage, so to speak, since the Scopes Monkey Trial.
My question though, is if these professionals knew the outcome of their inclusion in the study and its publication, why did they follow through with the whole thing? As rational people they must have known that the results of trying to bring religion into science would be disastrous. So, they either wanted to give people hope at the time of the 9/11 disaster, at the cost of their professinoal careers, or they wanted to try to open up a new field of study, to test the waters of reconciling faith and science. Either way, it was a noble form of martyrdom, even though they were consorting with frauds and criminals.
All this controversy however, is probably to keep people guessing and uncertain. Because if one side were proven and the other disproven it would ruin so many people's professional careers. If science is proven 100% correct, all the evangelists would be out in the cold, and if the theory of God were proven entirely correct, lots of scientists would have no purpose, expect only to further test the ways in which God made the universe to function.
Personally, I think the argument against this study is just trying to throw dirt into people's eyes. Just because one man had a history of fraud, doesn't mean he was commiting fraudulent actions in this study. There is room for it, but considering the one tainted individual was not in direct contact with the experiment, I don't see why his history should affect the fact that the study was proven a success.
The biggest problem, is that, due to this controversy, and the general stigma on religion in the scientific world, studies like these are probably not going to be repeated, just to maintain the status quo. If prayer studies were repeated and proven true, then what? Then man's influence on the world will increase tenfold. The population might skyrocket due to miracle pregnancy, which, in these times, would be highly unfavorable. And you'd have people organizing prayer groups to makes the Yankees win the world series, as well as a conflicting prayer group to make the Yankees lose. And after all, since we are only human, this would probably erupt in violence. And considering the common stance that God is all-forgiving, what does it matter if you break someone's jaw in a pre-game prayer-incited riot. As of now there are already enough silly-sports related riots and conflicts. Adding prayer into the mix would only create more problems. And this is only one aspect of the world ruled by prayer. There would probably be positive as wll as negative outcomes, and the only way to judge which wouldoutweigh the other would be to try it, which, in the current way of the world, is not going to happen.
On the Cosmic scale, though, science cannot explain the beginning of all existence. All theory states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so either we are dumb in assuming that what exists must have been created, or the statement must be qualified to include the phrase, "...by any known or human means." Really, it's impossible to judge whether what exists does or doesn't need a creator. But going back far enough, every system breaks down. If God created the universe and the laws that govern it, what created God and the laws that govern him and his universe, and most importantly, can God choose to break these laws since he made them, which would be required for the beginning of all things. Obviously there must be some divine entity that has always been and always will be. That could be the Universe which needs no creator, or God who needs no creator and created the universe.
Then there's the cell theory, of which one of the prime components is that "All cells come from pre-existing cells" This is another scientific theory that breaks down at the point of origin. Granted, with the size of the universe, the probability that the components of a cell would all come together in an environment in which it could survive is undeniably, slim, but still present. Science has yet to prove whether life, when given it's proper resources, is destined to happen, will always happen, or whether it was all an accident. Either may, most forms of life affect their environments in ways that are detrimental to their own well-being. Bacteria do not implement population control, thus they use up all their resources quickly, and die. The same trend is seemingly apparent in humans. However, the commentary on this phenomena could swing either way.
One could say that God made everything impermanent, because he himself is permanent and he created his antithesis in order to make existence, or himself, feel complete, as well as to possibly entertain or enlighten himself, or to get off on his own power. Basically, I think God is either a psychological necessity, or not having god is equally a necessity, depending on the type of person you are. God is always a father figure. And people who believe in god, tend to affiliate his nature with that of their fathers. To quote Fight Club, "Our fathers were our models for God." People with neglegent fathers believe in a neglegent God, and people With loving fathers believe in a loving God. Liekwise, people with no fathers are more likely to believe in no god. I have no citing to prove this, and it's not 100% accurate, but it is basically an observable trend wherever one goes.
The fore-fathers of our countries were deists, who believed that God made everything and left it to its own devices. Yet the hand of historical authorship, perhaps the intervention of God, seems apparent in many places, IF...you want to see it that way. Many of those same fore-fathers that disbelieved in the hand of providence died on July Fourth, independence day. This shows that either God has a twisted sense of humor, or the fore-fathers created this phenomenon, by discretely commiting suicide, in order to make themselves or the country seem more divine, to add an air of profoundness to USA, just like the theory of Manifest Destiny [which came true by the way]. Because to me this seems like more than a coincidence. And history is full of these anomolous twists of fate.
SUMMING IT ALL UP. Because the universe exists and because science cannot explain everything, It is just as likely that what created life, the unviverse and everything, was a conscious entity with a purpose---just as likely as it is that it all happened accidentally without purpose. I choose to believe in a God because of personal experience [prayer and result] and the shape of my personality. But there are many who go through life, entirely godless and seem to do fine without him.
The power of faith and prayer has been shown in many circumstances, whether it involves a god or not. But for some reason, I like to feel that existence has a purpose, that it's not just a bunch of trash flung together that spawned the first organic atoms into life, and that God is there observing and acting for those who call to him.
I'm not claiming that the Bible is 100% correct, nor that it is the one path to God. It was written by men, several men, often with conflicing opinions, and thus it's just a book with a bunch of moral codes and cushions for the weak or damaged soul. And if God exists, he probably wants us to have choice (seeing that we do) including the choice to believe in him or not. I'm not purporting eternal ****ation for those who don't believe, nor eternal salvation for those who do. Because if a human were conscious for eternity, with all his memories intact, wouldn't he feel that all existence is pointless, since anything he does is only a fragment of forever, where all pleasures would be jaded and triumphs worn and rotten. Even playing Smash for all eternity
with continually changing opponents would leave one hungry for something more. Would it not.
[sorry if your eyes are dead or your brain feels like it's on fire, but big topics inspire big posts]
[P.S. WHAT! d4mnation is censored in the debate hall? Pah!]
