I have written before about the way that the deck is stacked against proof of religious beliefs. Now, in a strictly logical sense, one cannot prove G-d's existence, as the many refuted proofs over the centuries have shown. But my argument does not relate to those, but to the empirical evidence. You see, first hand experience is often dismissed as "delusion". Even when a religious experience is documented to have happened to multiple witnesses, it is dismissed as "mass hysteria" or an outright lie. Which means there is simply no way to prove religious truth, as any firsthand experience, the only possible proof, is assumed to be unreliable, and thus there is no possibility of offering proof. As I wrote in "Atheism's Circular Reasoning" and "Standard of Proof", if the physical sciences were held to the same standard, we could prove nothing in science. The assumption of experience being unreliable would undermine all scientific experiment.

(I also mentioned that, unlike physical sciences, religious experience is not "repeatable", as we are dealing with a volitional being in G-d, so he does not respond in a mechanistic way. However, as we do not demand mechanistic responses in psychology, political science or economics, it seems absurd to demand of religious proof a strictly mechanistic response from a volitional being. Again, the choice of proof seems stacked against the believers for no reason other than a bias against religious belief.)

What brought this to mind was an essay I was reading on the CSICOP website debunking ghost sightings. Now I am no great believer in apparitions, but it seems to me the refutation offered is just as speculative as the explanation of "it was a ghost". Here is the text:

In other instances—as when a bartender reported that “a short, stout man walked out of the fireplace” (Belanger 2005, 91)—the circumstances are suggestive. The bartender may well have been tired (it was “late one rainy night”) and in a daydreaming state (he was “alone” with the soothing patter of rain), just the conditions known to prompt apparitional sightings in which images from the subconscious can momentarily be superimposed on the individual’s surroundings (Nickell 2001, 290–293).

Now this all sounds very Freudian, but what evidence do they have that "the subconscious" is "superimposed" onto reality? Is there any way to prove that an image was born from "the unconscious" or "subconscious" and was not an apparition? It seems that this is simply faith in materialism and psychology replacing faith in the supernatural. I am perfectly willing to believe certain situations are conducive to daydreams, but to say one can prove daydreams took place and have no spiritual component, the only proof available is to argue "because spirits don't exist", which means that against faith in spirits they are positing faith in strict materialism.

Of course materialists will argue that they can prove material reality exists, while there is no evidence of spirits. On the other hand, that "no evidence" depends on their eager rejection of first hand testimony of spirits, while accepting first hand evidence for material phenomena. Secondly, simply because something has not yet been proved and is not yet measurable does not mean it does not exist. Did the strong and weak forces not exist prior to their discovery? Did radio waves not exist until we could measure them?

To which they respond, "but we can explain everything without spirits." And I respond "medieval minds could explain everything without strong or weak forces, atomic physics, radio waves, ultraviolet or infrared, and a host of other things we take for granted. So could quite brilliant physicists, right up until the moment they were discovered, some quite recently. The fact that you cannot conceive of it does not mean something does not exist, nor does the fact that you have not incorporated it into your models of reality." In addition, I would add, they cannot "explain everything" without spirit or G-d, as no one can adequately "explain everything". Current theories have gaps and holes and exceptions and aberrations. It is why science continues. They may all be explained without any new forces, without spirit, without G-d, or maybe not. All I am suggesting is saying "everything is explained materially" is an arrogant statement, as we have not yet explained everything.

No, I am not going to start writing one of those loopy arguments that argues G-d holds together atoms or is behind gravity or something like that. My aim is much more modest. My only argument is that those who would claim G-d has been "proved" to not exist, or even that modern science has no place for G-d, might want to reconsider those statements. And, perhaps, that those who refuse to grant validity to first hand reports of religious phenomena might ask themselves why they automatically assume them to be delusions or lies, while having no problem according credence to reports in other fields.

POSTSCRIPT

It strikes me as particularly absurd that "rational" people will believe nonsense like Darren Brown's claims of using "programming" and "suggestion" (all while using nothing but conjuring tricks dressed up as pseudo science), yet will reject any testimony of religious occurrences as "unbelievable". Some is, of course, our cult of science, our belief that "science", even pseudo-science, is reliable and religion is old fashioned superstition, but still, to accept one man's testimony of something totally out of the ordinary, while nto accepting the testimony of hundreds to something no more bizarre seems to me a bit peculiar. (Even more bizarre, many atheists actually admire Brown's criticisms of religious faith, while accepting on faith his specious statements about suggestion. How strange the human mind can be. -- Actually, funnier still is to read the posts on that message board and ask "is it hypnotism or not?" It seems one person argues "it is all an act, and he is just pretending to use hypnotism, no one believes it", only to have the next post say "but he does it with hypnosis and nonverbal suggestion", showing at least some believe his absurd explanations. It seems rationalists are happy to believe in hypnosis and super suggestion and magical flashing lights and infinite suggestibility and pretty much anything so long as it bears the trappings of pseudoscience.)

POSTSCRIPT II

My writing on this topic can be found by following the links found in my posts "Bad Theses", "Materialist Arrogance", "Atheism's Circular Reasoning", "Strange Double Standard" and "Fascinating" .

POSTSCRIPT III

One final note. I have no objection to atheism. I have known many reasonable, decent atheists. My objection is to the "missionary atheists" who feel the need to constantly insist on telling me how wrong it is to believe and insist they have proof on their side. Strangely, they often complain about Christian attempts to evangelize, yet they themselves have no problem advocating just as vehemently for atheism. And with less justification. While Christians are required to preach by their faith, there is nothing in atheism that requires them to convert anyone. So, what is the harm in allowing others to believe? Especially when your "proofs" rest on little more than stacking the deck in favor of materialism. All I really ask is that atheists leave me alone until their proof comes to actually resemble proof, rather than special pleading back by a pro-atheist bias. (Also, I have asked in "A Thought on Hitchens", "Silly, Silly Argument" and elsewhere that before they blame social ills on religion they examine whether or not they are ascribing the ills inherent in a primitive time to religion alone in a rather anachronistic manner, or else looking at the results of completely unrelated phenomena and ascribing them to religious belief.)