Do you continue to accept the experiment as evidence that lemons cure cancer?
No, I don't, and here's why: in the context of clinical trials, there are established agreements about right and wrong methodology.
But if I correct those flaws in the methodology, I stop getting results that indicate that any of these things cure cancer.
What does this correspond to in your analogy? What this part does is show that the scientist questioning the methodology is correct, and the original experimenter is wrong. However I don't see any objective evidence that your "methodology" is better than a methodology that allows for God.
However, if you're trying to mean that your "correct" methodology is science in general, and that accepting evidence of God is inherently unscientific...
yes, I do.
yes, that's what you're saying. OK. That's largely what I was wondering—in your mind, there's no possible way to reconcile religion and rationality. Because the only evidence for God was found using a bad methodology, namely, personal experience.
What does this correspond to in your analogy? What this part does is show that the scientist questioning the methodology is correct, and the original experimenter is wrong. However I don't see any objective evidence that your "methodology" is better than a methodology that allows for God.
However, if you're trying to mean that your "correct" methodology is science in general, and that accepting evidence of God is inherently unscientific...
If you want to raise specific points of evidence for god, I can explain how the analogy relates, ... (read more)
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.