I have previously asked two questions about the "Skeptic's Prayer":
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 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 (refer to What is the biblical basis for John Lennox's claim that Christianity is testable?).
What counterarguments or responses can be provided to address the objections raised in the article?
