To preface, I am an atheist trying to understand more about the Christians around me as that is the religion I grew up on, until breaking away. I acknowledge that he was a real historical figure, but I don't accept the supernatural claims like miracles or resurrection. I watched an interview with Paul Rudd who was asked which historical figure he would most like to spend a day with and he replied with Jesus. I am curious on the rationale and what makes him so important or desirable to meet with. Personally, I would have initially thought of a great scientist or philosopher. From a skeptical standpoint, I’m trying to understand what makes Jesus such an important or appealing figure to spend time with - particularly beyond the theological claims like miracles or "dying for our sins," which rely on specific faith assumptions. When I researched this, I only get the assumptions as answers, so I am looking for objective truths. Apologies if this is a basic or obvious question. I'm just looking to learn more, and the Christians around me aren’t particularly well-versed in theology though I assume this community is.

It seems that those who attack the veracity of the Christian faith also dislike the faith on a qualitative level. They dislike what it fundamentally is about. Similarly, it seems that those who support the veracity of the Christian faith value the faith on a qualitative level. They cherish what it fundamentally is about. I am very curious to learn of any exceptions to this. I think someone who sees the faith as so good that it is worth believing in would probably not need extensive evidentialist support as a precursor to belief. Someone who sees the faith as essentially bad and not worth believing in would probably not need extensive evidentialist support as a precursor to disbelief. (This is not to undermine the value of evidence.) A quote by Thomas Nagel comes to mind: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."

Is there any scientific evidence for God and if so what is the scientific evidence?

To the best of my understanding, Christianity lacks a unified theory or epistemology. Instead, each denomination proposes its own framework (though calling these "theories" may be controversial; see [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/118294/80226) and [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/119181/80226)) that combines practical/experiential and non-practical/abstract elements. There are significant disagreements between denominations, each having its own epistemological basis—either explicitly defined or implicitly assumed—by which they often critique or reject the perspectives of others. To illustrate, here are some prominent examples: - **Jehovah's Witnesses** receive skepticism from other denominations because of their rejection of the Trinity, unique eschatological beliefs, and exclusive claim to doctrinal truth. - **Latter-day Saints (Mormons)** face skepticism for their additional scriptures like the Book of Mormon, beliefs in continuing revelation, and doctrines about God and the afterlife that differ from mainstream Christianity. - **Catholicism** includes beliefs such as Marian apparitions and Eucharistic miracles, which other denominations often view skeptically as unbiblical or exaggerated. - **Pentecostals and Charismatics** are critiqued for their emphasis on spiritual gifts like speaking in tongues, healing, and prophecy, which some see as lacking biblical or historical support. - **Calvinists** hold strong views on predestination and the lack of human free will in salvation, which others find incompatible with notions of divine justice and human responsibility. - **Eastern Orthodox** theology and practice differ from Western Christianity in areas like the Filioque controversy, the veneration of icons, and the concept of theosis, which others sometimes dismiss as overly mystical or traditionalist. Suppose an outside, non-Christian observer sympathetic to Lakatos' concept of [Scientific Research Programmes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Research_programmes) examines the landscape of deep Christian disagreements. Each Christian group is skeptical of every other group, with no shared research project advancing toward the truth—each simply holding its own beliefs regardless of what others believe. **What reason does Christianity offer this skeptical observer not to doubt all denominations simultaneously?** If there are *N* denominations, and each is already skeptical of the other *N-1* denominations, why would it be unreasonable for a skeptical observer to extend this skepticism to all *N*? After all, it’s merely adding one more denomination to the list. Alternatively, does Christianity present its own version of a progressive research programme (in line with Lakatos' definitions of *progressive* and *degenerative* programmes, as explained [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience)) ? Could such a programme offer a pathway for an outside observer to eventually converge on certain truths that might align with one denomination or another? ----------------------------- Additional clarifications: * If an answer merely focuses on listing a minimal set of Christian tenets as the theoretical *hard core* of Christianity (in Lakatosian terms), that would still leave unanswered **why an outside skeptical observer would have any reason whatsoever to accept these hard core tenets in the first place** in light of the fact that (1) even within Christianity there are smaller groups that do not accept them, and (2) a simple listing of tenets doesn't explain how these tenets are useful to *make progress* in our understanding of reality. * Related to the previous point, it's important to keep in mind that a key concept that Lakatos retains from Popper is *falsifiability*, which means that a scientific research program has to make *falsifiable predictions* which are so in virtue of being testable empirically. Thus, **does Christianity share this scientific appreciation for the empirical testability of its claims to any extent whatsoever?**

I asked this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103636/81556 . The question references the conversion of Blaise Pascal as an example. In response, a user commented the following: > The question assumes that Pascal was in fact directly converted by God. **What reason is there to believe the Christian God decided to do this to him, as opposed to someone else's similar experience by a Hindu god?** The experiences can't both be real. But are they both delusional? How can you know? ¶ This isn't a site for asking about truth. The question should present some denomination's view of the situation, and the question should be about how that denomination thinks God makes his decisions. A good answer will be equally acceptable to a Christian, a Hindu, and an Atheist. Are there Christians who are skeptical of conversion stories like Blaise Pascal's? If yes, why?

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism#Apathetic_agnosticism) defines *apathetic agnosticism* as follows: >### Apathetic agnosticism >A view related to apatheism, apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans; therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs. This view has also been called *Pragmatic Agnosticism*. The Wikipedia article also provides a reference to a [source](https://web.archive.org/web/20070807021506/http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/ourchurch/faith.html) which further elaborates upon the concept: >### Commentary on the Articles of Faith > This section contains all that is really important. All the rest of this extensive website is mere expansion on these fundamentals, or filler and amusements. (That is not intended to imply that you would not find it interesting to explore some of the other sections.) If you understand and accept these Articles of Faith, then you are an Apathetic Agnostic, whether or not you can be bothered to actually join the Church. > > **1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.** > > To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know. > > **2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.** > > All events in our Universe, including its beginning, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants. > > **3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.** > > If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being. However, our apathy to the question of God's existence does not necessarily mean we are apathetic about promoting agnosticism. What reasons does Christianity offer to reject one or more main tenets of *apathetic agnosticism*? For instance, are there compelling reasons to *care* about (rather than remain apathetic toward) the question of a Supreme Being's existence? Or, are there reasons to reject agnosticism (*we don’t know*) in favor of a more definitive stance on either side (*theism* vs. *atheism*)?

Proponents of intelligent design in both the universe and biology highlight several noteworthy features of nature. These include the [fine-tuning of the universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe) , the [surprising applicability of mathematics to the cosmos](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/111145/66156) , the extraordinary complexity of even the simplest cells, and concepts such as [irreducible complexity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity) and [specified complexity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity) . However, many skeptics find most, if not all, of these arguments unconvincing. Instead, they generally feel more persuaded to support the mainstream naturalistic explanations offered by science, namely, naturalistic [abiogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) and [evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) . They may also offer [naturalistic explanations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe#Explanations) for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. According to Christian proponents of intelligent design, why do so many skeptics remain unconvinced by ID arguments and instead advocate the mainstream naturalistic scientific views? Do ID proponents believe that skeptics' cognitive faculties are impaired by the blinding influence of Satan? If not, what other explanations might there be?

I am a theistic skeptic, but if I have a theistic virtue I do not demand God's grace (whatever it is I expect or need from Him). Is this a virtue? Or Is this a vice?

Fr. Carlos Martins ([profile](https://www.catholic.com/profile/fr-carlos-martins) , [personal YouTube channel](https://www.youtube.com/@Fr.CarlosMartins)) , author of [The Exorcist Files](https://www.amazon.com/-/dp/B0BS8ZN4B2) , has made the following declarations in a recent interview entitled *[Famous EXORCIST Reveals His Worst CASE](https://youtu.be/IF0YS30hr5o)* : > So in the room, when an exorcism is occurring, there might be different signs that you see, like I said, inanimate objects moving, sudden fluctuations in temperature, bizarre bodily contortions on the part of the victim, and so forth. So, but something that you need to know, that your viewers need to know, that these, that such things are only done to scare the exorcist and his team. So, if I were to bring you into a room--I'm just talking as a thought experiment--if you were to be present at an exorcism, if I were to invite you to come along and be as an intercessor, you walk in the room and all of a sudden you see a chair starting to float in the air by itself. So that might raise your blood pressure up a little bit, right? Okay. It might make you a little bit apprehensive, okay? So my immediate counsel to you, so how I would instruct you before even going into the room, is I would say never ever ever run. Because the Devil is a minor reality. And if you ... the devil is more afraid of you, as a baptized Christian, as a Son of God the Father, than you are of him. If you run, then you've bought into the lie that he's trying to create. Right. So now let's say I brought you into the room, that chair floated, you made it through that experience. Let's say on another exorcism I come in, I bring you in again, and you see a chair floating again. Would you be as scared as you would be the first time? No. What about the 22nd time you see a chair floating? Would you be as scared as the first time? No. Absolutely you're right. And after time 122 you would be even less. In fact, you might not even put down your cup of coffee [...] Fr. Carlos has also said in a [video](https://youtu.be/QdF9w4-1_BY) on his channel: > You know, people are fixed on the devil's power. They're fixed on what he can do. And they ask me what have you seen, have you seen levitation, have you been hit with objects flying through the air, and I'll say ... yeah, I've seen all of these things. But you know what? They're not the scary stuff. When you see a chair levitate for the 83rd time it gets old, but confronting the mind of the devil, the source of every perversion, every sin, every wickedness, every bad thing, that's scary. Despite testimonies from exorcists like Fr. Carlos Martins, many skeptics remain unconvinced, demanding substantial evidence such as actual footage of an exorcism or an exorcism conducted in a controlled setting with comprehensive measuring and recording devices. How do Christians who believe in exorcisms respond to skeptics demanding convincing evidence? --- **APPENDIX - Quotes from skeptical sources** > After initially advertising his “skeptical” approach to evaluating claims of possession, Gallagher commits the common error of confusing skepticism with cynicism. He states, “while the American Psychiatric Association has no official opinion on these affairs, the field (like society at large) is full of unpersuadable skeptics and occasionally doctrinaire materialists who are often oddly vitriolic in their opposition to all things spiritual.” Unwillingness to entertain a remarkable claim (cynicism) differs greatly from demanding evidence that is as remarkable as the claim (skepticism). A skeptical thinker could, in principle, be persuaded to consider the possibility of demonic possession if the data were overwhelming. **Nothing that Gallagher offers as evidence for demonic possession, however, approaches the realm of the extraordinary**. > > Source: [Superstition Masquerading as Science](https://skepticalinquirer.org/2017/02/superstition-masquerading-as-science/) , by Dean McKay, Rachel Ammirati, Scott O. Lilienfeld > NOTE FROM TED: **While demonic possession is a myth unsupported by any scientific evidence**, several claims in this talk around dissociative identity disorder and mental health are only representative of the speaker’s personal understanding. As the speaker states, please consult a mental health professional and do not look to this talk for medical advice. > > Source: the description under the video [The myth of demonic possession | Hassaan Tohid | TEDxUAlberta](https://youtu.be/ZbyoDl37mXk)

Notable examples include: - [Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](https://youtu.be/0tYm41hb48o) - [The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig](https://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg) - [Does Math Point to God? William Lane Craig + Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/8WE1y00bwCU) - [Is the Kalam Sound? Graham Oppy vs. Andrew Loke](https://youtu.be/a8NrTv-Durc) - [Are There Any Good Arguments for God? Ed Feser vs Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/m-80lQOlNOs) - [William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum](https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8) - [DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor](https://youtu.be/rnIQFI1pYLM) - [DEBATE Matt Dillahunty Vs Cliffe Knechtle | Is Christianity True? | Podcast](https://youtu.be/aAg3H1LU1Yw) - [Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable? Mike Winger vs. Matt Dillahunty](https://youtu.be/Z2FGgkubhZM) - [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) Given the well-established practice among (some) Christians of engaging in formal intellectual debates with atheists and skeptics to defend core tenets of the Christian faith, such as the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, through philosophical arguments, reason, and evidence (as the examples above illustrate), what is the biblical basis for this? The New Testament enumerates various spiritual gifts and ministries (1 Corinthians 12:4-11, Ephesians 4:11-13, Romans 12:6-8), but I am unaware of any ministry fitting the role of a "professional intellectual debater." --- **Note**: there is some overlap with my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679* , although the focus here is on the debate aspect, and the scope is broader in terms of what can be defended (resurrection of Jesus, miracles, etc.)

Numerous skeptics assert that modern Bibles are the result of a succession of copies of copies of copies of copies, implying that across centuries of transcription, translation, and interpretation, or possibly due to motivations to promote certain narratives, the original text might have been altered, distorted, or even lost. This skepticism arises from concerns regarding the reliability and accuracy of ancient manuscripts, as well as the methodologies employed in their preservation and transmission over time. In the context of defending the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, particularly focusing on the gospels, are there any renowned books that challenge this skepticism? Do they provide arguments for the faithful preservation of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) in our modern Bibles compared to the manuscripts originally penned by the gospel authors? --- **Note**. This question follows up on previous questions I have recently asked: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101169/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101109/61679

Bigfoot was brought up by Joe Rogan during his interview with Stephen Meyer, as discussed in Paulogia's review of the interview in [this video](https://youtu.be/MEEEJ0SrC60?t=525) : > **Stephen Meyer**: And then that there were reports that he had been, that he had appeared to many after being resurrected. So there's a whole ... > > **Joe Rogan**: Right, but there's reports of Bigfoot. > > **Paulogia**: Right again Joe, but at least for Bigfoot we have first-hand reports. For Jesus's resurrection all we have are reports of reports. At best. More likely, reports of reports of reports of reports. Bigfoot is in higher evidential standing. Another [atheist source](https://www.atheistrepublic.com/gallery/bigfoot-has-more-eyewitness-claims-jesus-christ-s-resurrection) similarly asserts: > Bigfoot Has More Eyewitness Claims Than Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Indeed, according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#Sightings) (which in turn cites other sources): > **Sightings** > > According to Live Science, there have been over 10,000 reported Bigfoot sightings in the continental United States. About one-third of all claims of Bigfoot sightings are located in the Pacific Northwest, with the remaining reports spread throughout the rest of North America. Most reports are considered mistakes or hoaxes, even by those researchers who claim Bigfoot exists. > > Sightings predominantly occur in the northwestern region of Washington state, Oregon, Northern California, and British Columbia. According to data collected from the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization's (BFRO) Bigfoot sightings database in 2019, Washington has over 2,000 reported sightings, California over 1,600, Pennsylvania over 1,300, New York and Oregon over 1,000, and Texas has just over 800. The debate over the legitimacy of Bigfoot sightings reached a peak in the 1970s, and Bigfoot has been regarded as the first widely popularized example of pseudoscience in American culture. To provide additional material for consideration, here is a two-part interview with a Bigfoot eyewitness that a Reddit user recommended [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bigfoot/comments/16mdj38/sharing_my_favorite_witness_video_interview/) : [part one](https://youtu.be/TsDM4b5SqaQ) and [part two](https://youtu.be/aROJHXkSm64) . (It's interesting to note there's a whole Reddit community dedicated to Bigfoot.) So, the atheistic argument from analogy goes something like this: Given the multitude of eyewitness reports supporting Bigfoot's existence, with many still alive and accessible for interview today, it's still deemed rational by most people to dismiss Bigfoot's existence, because most people consider the evidence weak and uncompelling given such an extraordinary claim (i.e., the well-known *"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"*). Thus, if we use the same epistemology consistently, says the atheist, shouldn't we also dismiss claims about Jesus' resurrection? After all, this is similarly an extraordinary claim, and the evidence available is arguably even weaker, as the number of purported witnesses is far fewer, and none are alive today for interrogation (and as Paulogia remarks in the video linked at the beggining, it's quite likely that what we have is not even reports of reports, but reports of reports of reports of reports). How do Christians break the symmetry? How is this atheistic argument from analogy invalid? --- **Note**. There is a similar purported analogy between Jesus' resurrection and the golden plates. The following is a very thought-provoking discussion: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84581/61679

The "skeptic's prayer" was relatively recently brought to my attention by an [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/104847/66156) to [one](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/104798/66156) of my questions on Philosophy Stack Exchange: > More in the vein of Schellenberg's argument above, I hope that I am sufficiently nonresistant to allow for more personal, direct conversion by God. I have said the **"skeptic's prayer"** sincerely at many points in my life but have yet to cross over to true belief (vs just motivated hope). Different versions of the "skeptic's prayer" are available on several websites. Some examples I quickly found: > 'God, I don't know whether you even exist. I'm a skeptic. I doubt. I think you may be only a myth. But I'm not certain (at least when I'm completely honest with myself). So, if you do exist, and if you really did promise to reward all seekers, you must be hearing me now. So I hereby declare myself a seeker, a seeker of truth, what-ever it is. I want to know the truth and live the truth. If you are the truth, please help me.' ([source](http://www.withoutexcusecreations.net/the-honest-skeptics-prayer/)) > Hello God. Honestly, I don’t know if you are real or if I am talking > to myself. People say this, others say that. I don’t know what to > think about you, if there is a you, and all those big questions > regarding life, the universe and everything. > > What can I know about you? How can I know you? Who is worthy of trust > in this world of confusion and betrayal? > > If you are there, If I am not just talking to myself, touch me for a > moment, so that I may find you, wherever you are, and whoever you may > be. > > Maybe if you will trust me a little, Give me a little mercy in my > confusion, I could learn to trust you too. It’s not always easy being > alive in this world. It would be nice to have some help. > > My question is simple. Am I talking to myself here? Or do you somehow, > somewhere exist? If in fact you exist, and are there for me, help me > find you. I don’t know what else to say about this. I do know that yes > or no, I want to know for myself. At least I think I do. In the > meantime, I’ll just wait and see what happens. One more thing. What > does this Jesus fellow have to do with this? > > Ok I’m done praying. What’s the word for the end of a prayer – Amen, > that’s what the church people say. Someone told me it means “so be > it.” I want this to be in my life, whatever this may turn out to be. > So I say Amen. > > We say "Amen" with you too. ([source](http://www.epiphanyokc.com/a-skeptics-prayer)) Is there scriptural support for God being willing to answer the prayers of an open-minded skeptic who sincerely seeks a divine response, hoping that it would confirm to their satisfaction that God is real, if that is indeed the case? And as a follow-up question, would a prayer like this work even in more extreme cases, such as the examples of non-believers referenced in my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99650/61679* ?

I have previously asked two questions about the "Skeptic's Prayer": - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99697/61679 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99731/61679 Upon reflection, I find that while complete certainty regarding the validity of this form of prayer may not be fully established, I'm highly persuaded that a reasonable case in favor of the legitimacy of the "Skeptic's Prayer" can be constructed based on Scripture. However, I encountered an [article](https://infidels.org/library/modern/robby-berry-skeprayr/) articulating a distinct set of objections to the prayer. The author, an atheist, contends that the prayer falls short of fulfilling the criteria for a valid scientific test. I will quote the first paragraphs of the article: > **A Response To “The Skeptic’s Prayer”** > > **Robby Berry** > > “The Skeptic’s Prayer” is a tract taken from the Handbook Of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. > I first learned of the tract when Jeff Lowder posted it to the Usenet > newsgroup, alt.atheism. What follows is my response to the tract. > > > **Introduction** > > *The following prayer is based on Jeremiah 29:12,13: “Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You > will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”* > > > > **Concept** > > *If you are an honest scientist, here is a way to find out whether Christianity is true or not. Perform the relevant experiment. To test > the hypothesis that someone is behind the door, knock. To test the > Christian hypothesis that Christ is behind the door, knock.* > > > > *How do you knock? Pray! Tell Christ you are seeking the truth– seeking him, if he is truth. Ask him to fulfill his promise that all > who seek him will find him. In his own time, of course. He promised > that you would find, but he didn’t promise a schedule. He’s a lover, > not a train.* > > There is a serious problem with this “scientific” experiment. Suppose > you try the experiment, and nothing happens right away. How long do > you wait until you conclude that the experiment has failed to reveal > the existence of God? If nothing happens, is it because God does not > exist, or because God simply hasn’t gotten around to answering yet, or > because God is for some reason unable to contact us, or because God > does not wish to contact us, or because of some other reason? > > > *But, you man reply, I don’t know whether Christ is God. I don’t even know whether there is a God. That’s all right; you can pray the prayer* > *of the skeptic*. > > > > **Skeptic’s Prayer** > > *“God, I don’t know whether you even exist. I’m a skeptic. I doubt. I think you may be only a myth. But I’m not certain (at least when I’m > completely honest with myself). So if you do exist, and if you really > did promise to reward all seekers, you must be hearing me now. So I > hereby declare myself a seeker, a seeker of the truth, whatever it is > and wherever it is. I want to know the truth and live the truth. If > you are the truth, please help me.”* > > > > *If Christianity is true, he will. Such a prayer constitutes a scientifically fair test of the Christian hypotheses– that is, if you > do not put unfair restrictions of God, like demanding a miracle (your > way, not his) or certainly by tomorrow (your time, not his). The > demand that God act like your servant is hardly a scientifically fair > test of the hypothesis that there is a God who is your King.* The rest of the article contains language that may be perceived as too offensive, and including it would also make the quote excessively long. However, the gist of the objections presented in the article can be summarized as follows: **1. Lack of Specific Criteria for an Answered Prayer:** The Skeptic's Prayer lacks clarity on what specific results would indicate an answered prayer, making the experiment vague and inconclusive. **2. Absence of Scientific Methodology:** The tract claims to present a scientifically fair test but fails to adhere to the principles of the scientific method by not defining clear criteria for success or failure. **3. Rejection of Specificity as "Unfair Restrictions":** The authors dismiss the idea of specifying criteria for an answered prayer as "unfair restrictions," but this rejection of specificity hinders the experiment's meaningfulness and objectivity. **4. Ambiguity in Recognizing God's Revelation:** The experiment does not provide a clear definition of what circumstances or events would constitute God revealing Himself, leaving room for subjective interpretation. **5. Failure to Exclude Alternative Hypotheses:** The experiment does not account for alternative explanations for an answered prayer, such as luck, psychological factors, or other supernatural forces, leading to potential misinterpretations. **6. Skepticism as a Positive Sign:** The author suggests that the attempt to frame religious claims within a scientific context, as seen in the Skeptic's Prayer, reflects a shift towards skepticism, which is *"slowly but surely taking the place of faith."* **7. Overall Ineffectiveness of the Skeptic's Prayer as a Definitive Experiment:** The critique concludes that the Skeptic's Prayer falls short as a conclusive experiment for proving or disproving God's existence, emphasizing the need for more rigorous and specific scientific approaches to settle such questions. Quote: *"Perhaps someday, real scientists will devise an experiment capable of detecting God and settling this issue once and for all. But the Skeptic’s Prayer isn’t it."* I have two questions: - Can we legitimately categorize the Skeptic's Prayer as a "scientific experiment"? Interestingly, the attempt to portray this prayer in a 'scientific' light brings to mind John Lennox's assertion that Christianity can be tested (see *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97877/61679*) . - What counterarguments or responses can be provided to address the objections raised in the article? --- EDIT: More objections to the scientific status of the prayer are presented by many of the answers to [Is the Skeptic's Prayer a legitimate scientific experiment? - Philosophy Stack Exchange](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/108053/66156)

I posted a question on Philosophy Stack Exchange titled [*Is the Skeptic's Prayer a legitimate scientific experiment?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/108053/66156) . Please review it for contextual information. Numerous responses, predominantly from non-believers and skeptics, present various objections to the scientific validity of the *Skeptic's Prayer*. However, let's consider a scenario where a skeptic, intrigued by the possibility of God's existence and the truth of Christianity, decides to earnestly give it a try. This individual prays with the hopeful expectation of a divine response, but despite genuine effort, experiences no discernible outcome, and no conversion experience takes place. Eventually, the skeptic abandons their exploratory pursuit. From a Christian standpoint, what conceivable explanations exist for why a truth-seeking skeptic, in the specific endeavor of seeking an encounter with or a response from the Christian God, might perceive a lack of "results" in their pursuit?

The "Skeptic's Prayer" is introduced on page 411 of [*Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned Answers to Questions of Faith*](https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Catholic-Apologetics-Reasoned-Questions/dp/1586172794) , by Peter Kreeft & Fr. Ronald Tacelli. > ### The Skeptic's Prayer > > This claim---that all seekers find---is testable by experience, by > experiment. If you are an honest scientist, here is a way to find out > whether Christianity is true or not. Perform the relevant experiment. > To test the hypothesis that someone is behind the door, knock. To test > the Christian hypothesis that Christ is behind the door, knock. > > How do you knock? Pray! Tell Christ you are seeking the > truth---seeking *him*, if he is the truth. Ask him to fulfill his > promise that all who seek him will find him. In his own time, of course. He > promised that you would find, but he didn't promise a schedule. He's a > lover, not a train. > > But---you may reply---I don't know whether Christ is God. I don't even > know whether there is a God. That's all right; you can pray the > prayer of the skeptic: > > > God, I don't know whether you even exist. I'm a skeptic. I doubt. I think you may be only a myth. But I'm not certain (at least when I'm > completely honest with myself). So, if you do exist, and if you really > did promise to reward all seekers, you must be hearing me now. So I > hereby declare myself a seeker, a seeker of the truth, whatever it is and wherever it is. I want to know the truth and live the truth. If you are the truth, > please help me. > > If Christianity is true, He will. Such a prayer constitutes a > scientifically fair test of the Christian "hypothesis"---that is, if > you do not put unfair restrictions on God, like demanding a miracle > (your way, not his) or certainty by tomorrow (your time, not his). The > demand that God act like your servant is hardly a scientifically fair > test of the hypothesis that there is a God who is your King. > > But all this King asks for at first is honesty, not faking a faith you > do not have. Honesty is a choice of the will---the choice to seek the > truth no matter what or where. This is the most momentous choice you > can make. It is the choice of light over darkness, ultimately heaven > over hell. > > Honesty is infinitely more momentous than we often think. It is also > much harder than we think. Our culture trivializes honesty into merely > "sharing your feelings", telling others about the state of our nerve > ends. That's not the opposite of dishonesty, that's just the opposite > of *shame* or shyness. Shallow honesty seeks "sharing"; deep honesty > seeks truth. Shallow honesty stands in the presence of others; deep > honesty stands in the presence of God. An often-raised critique of this prayer's presentation is its perceived vagueness regarding conditions and expectations (see examples of critiques [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/108053/66156) and [here](https://infidels.org/library/modern/robby-berry-skeprayr/)) . According to proponents of this form of prayer, how much additional specificity and detail can be added beyond what Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli have presented? In particular, I'm interested in the following aspects: *Conditions* For the Skeptic's Prayer to be effective, are there unstated implicit conditions beyond those mentioned by Peter and Ronald? For instance: - Is a single invocation sufficient, or does it require daily repetition over a few days, multiple times a day for an extended period, or even years or decades? The clarification on this aspect is not provided by Peter and Ronald. At a minimum, it seems they endorse trying the prayer at least once. However, they provide no guidance on frequency, intensity, or similar factors. - Are there thresholds to the level of skepticism a person must have before attempting the prayer? Can one be "too skeptical" for the prayer's effectiveness, and if so, are there strategies to overcome this limitation? - Is the skeptic supposed to undertake additional practices during the Skeptic's Prayer "experiment," like attending specific church services, fasting, reading the Bible, studying natural theology, or anything else? Or is merely praying for a few minutes sufficient, with no specified changes to one's daily life? While Peter and Ronald overlook this aspect, I presume it holds significant importance. *Expectations* How explicit can expectations be in the Skeptic's Prayer "experiment"? What should the seeker anticipate? Is an event expected, and if so, will it be clear and unmistakable? Can specific examples of this event be given to enhance the expectation's specificity, clarity, and detail? Peter and Ronald caution against expecting miracles, but what reasonable outcome can the seeker envision in their mind as something to anticipate with hopeful expectation?

In my prior question, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99697/61679 , several responses concurred that this form of prayer is valid and supported by scripture. Yet, a compelling objection caught my attention: the contention that we should refrain from advising skeptics to pray for signs, revelations, experiences, or 'aha' moments to foster belief. According to this objection, skeptics already possess all the necessary elements for belief, and thus they should simply opt to believe without the need for praying for anything else. In essence, it posits that belief is a decision of the will that can be made instantly, without the necessity of praying for additional guidance or experiences. Consequently, after having heard the preaching of the gospel, a skeptic should encounter no impediment in simply choosing to believe. The purported capacity of individuals to instantly adopt any belief purely through an arbitrary act of the will is termed **direct doxastic voluntarism** in philosophy, a viewpoint that encounters substantial [philosophical objections](https://iep.utm.edu/doxastic-voluntarism/) and is similarly disputed [even within Christianity](https://www.gotquestions.org/doxastic-voluntarism.html) . Nevertheless, I've observed that certain Christians assume its validity. Notably, individuals have cited specific Biblical passages to substantiate their adherence to **direct doxastic voluntarism**. The following are some examples: Mark 1:15 >and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; **repent and believe** in the gospel.” Mark 5:36 >But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, **only believe**.” Acts 19:4 >And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, **telling the people to believe** in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” Luke 8:50 >But Jesus on hearing this answered him, “Do not fear; **only believe**, and she will be well.” John 10:37-38 >**37** If I am not doing the works of my Father, then **do not believe me**; **38** but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, **believe** the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” John 14:1 >“Let not your hearts be troubled. **Believe in God; believe also in me**. Does the Bible genuinely endorse **direct doxastic voluntarism**, and if it does, does this undercut the validity of the "skeptic's prayer"?

I often find it helpful to illustrate my point with extreme cases. Let's examine some well-known examples of unbelievers: [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) , a distinguished atheist philosopher specializing in philosophy of religion; [Peter Atkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins) , an atheist scientist highly proficient in Chemistry; [Stephen Hawking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking) , a globally recognized atheist theoretical physicist and cosmologist; and [Carl Sagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) , a renowned astronomer and science communicator who identified as an agnostic. For example, on the question of whether God exists, Carl Sagan once said: > An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. **To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed**. ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-Sagan2006-120)) Graham Oppy was [asked](https://youtu.be/OQv_K9toh2k) the question of what it would take to convince him to believe in God during an interview on *Premier Unbelievable?*. He essentially expressed uncertainty, leaning towards skepticism that a new philosophical argument for God's existence would be persuasive to him, given the countless arguments for God he had already studied. Similarly, when Peter Atkins was [asked](https://youtu.be/dRWIsuEL0Ac) on a different occasion, "*Could anything convince you God exists?*" he responded by stating that he couldn't think of any convincing factor, given his unwavering commitment to naturalism. In light of individuals with such backgrounds—who genuinely grapple with the inability to conceive of anything convincing—I find it challenging to reconcile this reality with the notion that the gift of saving faith in Christ is universally accessible. It's difficult for me to envision someone like Graham Oppy simply "choosing" to embrace and exercise the gift of saving faith in Christ supposedly available to him, or simply "choosing" to become born again. Absent a miracle, direct revelation, or an encounter akin to Acts 9, I genuinely struggle to see how this could plausibly unfold. If the offer of saving faith in Christ is a universal gift from God, does this extend to unbelievers like those mentioned earlier? If the opportunity for saving faith is accessible to all, can committed unbelievers such as Carl Sagan or Graham Oppy also avail themselves of this gift?

Is Saint Doubting Thomas the Patron Saint of any of the following: 1. Rational Theology 2. Science 3. Skepticism (religious [atheism] and others) *Deus Magnus Est*