Experimenting?

I'm trying to approach my doubts and explorations in a logical / scientific way... In science, if you have 2 opposing hyphotheses, then you could do some experiments where you test which one holds true in each situation. Imagine 2 hypotheses: "Salt will disolve in water", "Salt will not disolve in water". You could do some experiments with salt and water and see which was true. (OK, so actually neither is probably completely true, but salt does generally disolve in water, until it gets saturated... I think!).

Is it possible to do the same with "God exists" and "God does not exist"? I'm not sure it is, because what the "results" would be in each situation is not clear... e.g. Would you say "If God exists then there should be no suffering"? I wouldn't, but some could use this as evidence to prove / disprove God's existence... All very confusing.

I'm reading "The God Delusion" (Richard Dawkins) at the moment, and he acknowledges that we can't be completely sure of whether God exists or not, but that he believes the weight of probability tilts very much towards God's non-existence. I'm not sure I am clear enough on what the results of God existing would look like to reach this point... so I guess I'm an agnostic for the time being.

Darwin vs God

I snuck in to a showing of "Did Darwin kill God?" last night at the University of Nottingham, courtesy of Theosoc. It was attended by Conor Cunningham, the presenter and writer of the BBC show.

It was very interesting and the documentary was well put together. The essence of it was that the Darwin vs God debate is a false one, that has only been perpetuated by extremists from both "sides". He presents a fairly coherent view of how orthodox (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox) Christianity has never been committed to 6-day creationism. Equally, he shows that Darwin himself wasn't and mainstream science isn't close to ultra-darwinism.

The Q&A session went somewhat over my head because of a lot of jargon (theodocy, aristotlian oojimaflips, philoan thingies, ontological vs methodological, subjectivity ... and plenty of others that I didn't even understand enough to remember!). But it was still useful and definitely interesting to be around people who are engaging with debates on this issue.

I could say a lot more on it, but I don't really have time. One question I would have asked if I'd had the guts would have been: "How do you see God interacting with individuals now?".

All the questions in the world

I recently was asked to write down a list of all the questions that were going round in my head. Here's what I came up with in the first 20 mins...

Is there a God?
Is it possible to know if there's a God? How sure can you be?
How can you know if there's a God?
How come some very clever atheists don't believe in God?
How come some very clever Christians believe in God?

Does it even matter?
What could life be about if it's not about pursuing God?
Does there have to be a purpose?

Is my belief in right & wrong just a product of my upbringing?
If it is, does that mean it's untrue?
Can I even ask that question without believing in right & wrong?

Is it really the case that Jesus can only be mad, bad or God?

Is it possible to know anything for sure?
How?
How much is enough?
Even if I'm sure, is that enough?
What about people that disagree?

Is it possible to know anything for sure?
If not, is everything based on emotion really rather than thought?
If not, is everything based on faith... and how can I be sure that faith isn't misplaced?

If Christianity is true, why:
- didn't I see my life changing more?
- don't I see more supernatural stuff?

Is believing in God just a convenient way of reassuring yourself that something with more control than you is looking out for you?
Can church be good whilst not being true?
Can it be bad whilst being true?
Is worship enjoyable because it's psychologically good to take the focus off yourself sometimes?
Even if that's true, does it diminish it?

Isn't it a bit convenient that to believe in God you have to have faith? What else is that really true about? Love?

Why could prayer be more than just "believing in the positive and it will come to you"?
What if prayer is actually a way of doing that?
What if they're both ways to help you notice the positives when you get what you want and ignore the negatives when you don't get what you want?
Why would God care what we want?
Why would we be able to change his mind on stuff?
If so, do we somehow control him?
If not, does he control us?
Is prayer a way of trying to get what we want? Like a child nags it's parent (or Lizzy nags her husband)?

Is my process and emotional or intellectual one?
If I understand and know enough - would I believe more?

Are my doubts centred truly around God's existence or more my own self-belief in being able to "do it"?
What if I choose to be a crap Christian and not try hard at anything, but just believe something?
Is that even possible?
Would that really be belief or just fire insurance?
Am I just lazy?

Is it possible to answer these questions?
How?

What if life is just about asking lots of questions and never knowing the answers?
What if that's what the rest of my life will be?
Is that sustainable?
Should Christians be open to alternative views? How open?
Is learning stock answers to questions enough?
Should they let it challenge them to the core or protect themselves with something?

It seems convenient to outsource your conscience.

I think I have too many questions in proportion to answers!