True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A New Beginning

Beady,

There are two kinds of miracles. The first is a suspension or violation of physics, which removes it from the scientific realm, and there is no conflict.

That is an interesting interpretation.
I would have thought that a "suspension or violation of physics" would, by definition, be the magisteria of religion overlapping the magisteria of science. In fact, more than just "overlapping" goddamn "suspending" or "violating" it!
A "suspension or violation of physics" is, I think, something science would notice.

The second is merely beating the odds (as in surviving a catastrophe or winning in Vegas), which has been solidly documented innumerable times and is scientifically demonstrable. Again, there is no conflict.

"Beating the odds" ?
I think you mean "not getting the average result". Virtually no one gets the average result. Science predicts that outcomes, depending on the circumstances, will follow a "normal distribution". In other words, it is ALL science. No religion involved anywhere. Except perhaps in the mind of the subject who happens to find himselrf on the edge of the "bell curve".

(Shrug) So what? For the most part, religious ethics and "natural" ethics are reasonably similar. Religious ethics say you shouldn't kill because God says so; natural ethics say you shouldn't kill because, among other things, it's not in your self-interest;

Meaning that the magisteria of religion and science overlap, does it not. More pointedly, the ethics of religion is very likely the product of evolution. So, you seem to be agreeing that there is no separation of religion and science here.

Any questions here will be resolved by the individual involved, and no one else, according to his/her own personal criteria. I have no idea why the fact that or reasons why Fred Mertz chose to be a Presbyterian should be of interest to anyone but Fred Mertz.

Well, you were saying that you can be a (true)sceptic and be religious because the two are completely separate. I have tried to show that they are not separate magisteria (except, perhaps for Buddhism - "pure spirit" and all that ). More to the point, you may regard Fred becoming a Presbyterian as his indvidual choice, but he is actually choosing someone elses way of life for himself. This is a bit different from finding your own meaning.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[jmercer]

I've often thought about how God could prove Himself to be the "real deal" if he appeared in front of me today. It's a helluva tough question; how would one prove themselves to be the supreme being and prime mover?

I mean - anything less than creating an entire universe in front of us would leave the question open.

 

[Donn]

Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

Ah, but you wouldn't have 2.1 billion people agreeing with you - so why would you be taken seriously?

While quantity hardly ensures correctness, it certainly should ensure that the beliefs be taken seriously.

Yeah - we have to take beliefs seriously - not because they are worthy of study (as a science) but because they command the minds of so many people.



If the Sceptical among us are not up to the task of questioning their own beliefs, well - what use is the critical-toolkit?

It seems that religion is more powerful than a cool head and a long, hard think.

 

[Donn]

I've often thought about how God could prove Himself to be the "real deal" if he appeared in front of me today. ... snip ...
I mean - anything less than creating an entire universe in front of us would leave the question open.

And even then you could be having a mental breakdown.
Oh you said 'us' - a whole universe... I suppose. I don't know much about universes, would I recognize this one as different from the last one?

I reckon, if god could liberate all our minds. Give us all clarity of thought, remove all the conflicting emotions and mental blocks. Give us all great skills in maths, science and language. Take us to the point where we are not fighting to survive, but are actually living to be alive! Where we can emigrate to other planets and spread real peace and real harmony.


In a way - god would have to grant us all the tools we need to dismiss god! Oh er - my fallacy meter just went "sproinggg!"

 

[Beady]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A New Beginning

A "suspension or violation of physics" is, I think, something science would notice.

Are you really going to try to twist my words into making it look like I said I believe in this kind of miracle? All I said was that a miracle of this sort is not within the realm of science. Whether you believe Jesus actually turned water into wine is an entirely seperate question.

"Beating the odds" ?
I think you mean "not getting the average result".

No, smart-a**, I don't. Never winning a single bet in your entire life is "not getting the average result." I mean beating the odds; having a long shot pay off; having your ship come in; winning the lottery five times in a row; surviving a tsunami when the rest of the village drowns; working on the 110th floor of the World Trade Center and calling in sick on 9/11; missing your plane, only to find it crashed and killed everyone on board; having an unknown relative leave you a fortune in their will...

I definitely do *not* mean your piddling little "not getting the average result." I do not mean winning or losing, I mean winning, and winning *big*. Often when you don't even know you're in the game. *That* is the second kind of miracle.

So, you seem to be agreeing that there is no separation of religion and science here.

No. I'm saying that to distinguish ethics which are founded on religion from ethics which are evolutionary is meaningless. Ultimately, both kinds result in similar rules of behavior. 2+2 and 3+1 both equal four.

Well, you were saying that you can be a (true)sceptic and be religious because the two are completely separate. I have tried to show that they are not separate...

Tried, and failed.

More to the point, you may regard Fred becoming a Presbyterian as his indvidual choice, but he is actually choosing someone elses way of life for himself .

There is so much that is objectionable about this statement that I hardly know where to begin.

Are you saying that any belief or belief system that already exists cannot be percieved by an individual as "correct," and therefore cannot be chosen on that basis, and that basis alone?

Are you claiming that everyone who joins an organized religion is nothing more than a copycat?

By extension, are you claiming that everyone who choses something, anything, that someone else has previously thought of or chosen is nothing more than copycat?

And, even in those instances when someone does make a decision based on someone else's thoughts, decisions or actions, is there necessarily anything wrong with that? Does someone adopt a religion because it's Martin Luther's answer, or because it looks to them like Martin Luther's answer is correct?

And finally, by what right do you trivialize another person's choice of lifestyle or belief in such a manner?

I edited this to correct some grammer and started rewriting whole paragraphs. That usually means my emotions are getting involved, and that's not good. I'm going to stop, now.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

While free admitting that I have not read all of the posts in this long thread in full detail, this is the impression I am left with:

1) If BS Investigator had opened the thread with something along these lines: "How is it possible for an individual to reconcile the skeptical approach and critical thinking with belief in religious claims?" I think we would have gotten something more useful out of the debate sooner.

2) By shifting definitions we don't learn from each other:

2a) Claims of the existence of any "True" skeptic appears to be a an absolutist claim and a practical impossibility.

2b) Defining religion merely as "personal experience which cannot be conveyed through language to others" makes virtually all definitions, and hence discussion, meaningless, and in practical terms, is as useless as a solipsistic World view.

2c) If the definition of religion as used in this thread had involved typical 'dictionary features' such as belief in a creator, an external 'entity' but not physically apparent with intent and purpose guiding human destiny and the belief that the 'entity' (deity(ies)) can be influenced by prayer and other rituals, then I don't think the thread would have lasted very long.

3) We're stuck on the 'No True Scotsman' syndrome on two counts: There are no 'true' skeptics, and the faith-denominations followed by billions of unsuspecting people are not 'true' religions.

4) The ability of the believer - nay, anyone (myself included) to rationalize away the logical and empirical flaws, contradictions and deficiencies of his/her belief is truly impressive, but obviously a very human trait.


I think it all boils down to...cognitive dissonance.

BTW: Can a 'True' skeptic smoke, eat too much junk food, eschew exercize, drive a dangerous gas guzzler etc.?

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A New Beginning

Beady,

Easy. This is meant to be a friendly discussion, isn't it?

Are you really going to try to twist my words into making it look like I said I believe in this kind of miracle? All I said was that a miracle of this sort is not within the realm of science. Whether you believe Jesus actually turned water into wine is an entirely seperate question.

Look, if water miraculously turns into wine, regardless of who does it, it affects science. That is all I 'm saying. Do you really think that if scientists observed water turning miraculously into wine they would not be affected by it? If you agree they would, then religion that includes miracles overlaps with science and your point about religion and science not overlapping is undermined.

No, smart-a**, I don't. Never winning a single bet in your entire life is "not getting the average result." I mean beating the odds; having a long shot pay off; having your ship come in; winning the lottery five times in a row; surviving a tsunami when the rest of the village drowns; working on the 110th floor of the World Trade Center and calling in sick on 9/11; missing your plane, only to find it crashed and killed everyone on board; having an unknown relative leave you a fortune in their will...

I definitely do *not* mean your piddling little "not getting the average result." I do not mean winning or losing, I mean winning, and winning *big*. Often when you don't even know you're in the game. *That* is the second kind of miracle.

You said "beating the odds". This can mean "doing better than average". You then explained that you meant "really REALLY REALLY beating the odds" (as in winning the lotto fives times). I understood that. That is why, in similar fashion I said "not getting the average result". This could also mean winning the lotto five times or, as I put it a little further on, "finding yourself on the edge of the bell curve". If you did not understand that phrase, you should have asked for an explanation. It simply means "really REALLY REALLY beating the odds". If you did understand it, then I don't know what you are objecting to in what I said.

No. I'm saying that to distinguish ethics which are founded on religion from ethics which are evolutionary is meaningless. Ultimately, both kinds result in similar rules of behavior. 2+2 and 3+1 both equal four.

But your point was that religion and science are separate. With the above statement you appear to be saying that they do overlap, which was my point. If you do not agree with this interpretation, please explain why not. My further point was that religious ethics very likely evolved just like everything else evolved. If religious ethics evolved, then we have an overlap with science. Don't we?

Tried, and failed.

I am not sure that that is entirely my fault.

There is so much that is objectionable about this statement that I hardly know where to begin.

Are you saying that any belief or belief system that already exists cannot be percieved by an individual as "correct," and therefore cannot be chosen on that basis, and that basis alone?

Are you claiming that everyone who joins an organized religion is nothing more than a copycat?

By extension, are you claiming that everyone who choses something, anything, that someone else has previously thought of or chosen is nothing more than copycat?

And, even in those instances when someone does make a decision based on someone else's thoughts, decisions or actions, is there necessarily anything wrong with that? Does someone adopt a religion because it's Martin Luther's answer, or because it looks to them like Martin Luther's answer is correct?

And finally, by what right do you trivialize another person's choice of lifestyle or belief in such a manner?

I edited this to correct some grammer and started rewriting whole paragraphs. That usually means my emotions are getting involved, and that's not good. I'm going to stop, now.

It would be extraordinary if the whole lock, stock and two smoking barrels of a particular religion (or a particular philosophy or point of view) gelled exactly with Fred's view. Wouldn't it? That is all I am saying. I think you read far too much into my little paragraph. If you have baggage, I don't mind handling a little of it, but I don't think I disserve the whole lot dumped on top of my head.

BillyJoe

 

[Beady]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A New Beginning

Look, if water miraculously turns into wine, regardless of who does it, it affects science. That is all I 'm saying.

If water ever, at any time in the history of the world, has been turned into wine, it has not affected science one little bit. If you are claiming that it has, show me how. People have claimed such miracles for centuries, and science has not been "affected" one whit.

If water has never been turned into wine, then the question does not arise.

In point of fact, I have never claimed that such miracles have ever occurred (if you are claiming I have said otherwise, prove it). I have only stated that they are one of two kinds of miracle about which people speak, and that the very nature of these kind removes them from the scientific realm.

Yes, there have been plenty of fake miracles that science has explained. But then, being fake, they were not miracles; they occurred within the physical world and were explained with reference to physical law. There was no conflict between science and religion.

But your point was that religion and science are separate. With the above statement you appear to be saying that they do overlap, which was my point. If you do not agree with this interpretation, please explain why not.

Two things do not have to "overlap" to be similar. To say that two roads running in different directions, yet ending at the same destination, "overlap" is pushing the definition of the word to the breaking point. If those roads end at different, yet similar and adjacent destinations, the insistence that they overlap is ludicrous.
Evolutionary ethics and religious ethics are two different roads; whether they end at a common destination or two seperate, yet adjacent destinations, the roads themselves do not "overlap."

My further point was that religious ethics very likely evolved just like everything else evolved. If religious ethics evolved, then we have an overlap with science. Don't we?

"Very likely." "If." That's not a point, it's a proposition founded on a supposition, and is as solid as is anything else that floats on air. You have produced absolutely no evidence.

I am not sure that that is entirely my fault.

I have absolutely no responsibility to be convinced by you.

It would be extraordinary if the whole lock, stock and two smoking barrels of a particular religion (or a particular philosophy or point of view) gelled exactly with Fred's view. Wouldn't it?

The religion is not agreeing with Fred, Fred is agreeing with the religion. Why should that be extraordinary? And if Fred has doubts, so what? Do those doubts also belong to someone else, and Fred is a copycat a second time?

That is all I am saying. I think you read far too much into my little paragraph. If you have baggage, I don't mind handling a little of it, but I don't think I disserve the whole lot dumped on top of my head.

Any baggage here is yours, not mine. You're the one who can't seem to understand the mechanism behind suspension of disbelief, and you are the one who insists on splitting hairs that do not need to be split. I do, however, confess to getting annoyed when someone tells me what I meant to say and goes out of their way to force my words into a meaning that I didn't intend.

My whole point, here, is that there does not necessarily have to be a conflict between science and religion, so long as people are content to leave each in its proper sphere. The conflict arises, as you are so superbly demonstrating for me, because there are people who absolutely insist on superimposing one upon the other.

 

[Moochie]

BTW: Can a 'True' skeptic smoke, eat too much junk food, eschew exercize, drive a dangerous gas guzzler etc.?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yikes! Too much information!

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

Yeah - we have to take beliefs seriously - not because they are worthy of study (as a science) but because they command the minds of so many people.

If the Sceptical among us are not up to the task of questioning their own beliefs, well - what use is the critical-toolkit?

It seems that religion is more powerful than a cool head and a long, hard think.

Question? Yes.

Doubt? Certainly.

Dismiss? Only with strong evidence that indicates the claim is bogus. A "cool head and a long, hard think" are insufficient; any claim made on that basis is weak due to lack of evidence.

A lack of current manifestation; "no need for a God", "Why would God permit..." and all of the other arguments against God are not evidential. They're simply opinions and viewpoints, no different than the believer's opinions and viewpoints - except, of course, it's held by a minority.

So whenever I read a message from a fellow skeptic that dismisses God, I ask "Do you have evidence supporting your claim?"

It's the same question a skeptic would ask a believer who claimed God exists. Why, then, is it such a problem when the same exact rules are applied to some skeptics?

 

[jmercer]

And even then you could be having a mental breakdown.
Oh you said 'us' - a whole universe... I suppose. I don't know much about universes, would I recognize this one as different from the last one?

I reckon, if god could liberate all our minds. Give us all clarity of thought, remove all the conflicting emotions and mental blocks. Give us all great skills in maths, science and language. Take us to the point where we are not fighting to survive, but are actually living to be alive! Where we can emigrate to other planets and spread real peace and real harmony.


In a way - god would have to grant us all the tools we need to dismiss god! Oh er - my fallacy meter just went "sproinggg!"

Good post, as usual. And I see you got my point - there's really no way to prove God is God, even if He decided to meet every criteria we could think of.

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A New Beginning

My whole point, here, is that there does not necessarily have to be a conflict between science and religion, so long as people are content to leave each in its proper sphere. The conflict arises, as you are so superbly demonstrating for me, because there are people who absolutely insist on superimposing one upon the other.

If anybody claims that God is in fact real then they are supermiposing religion onto science. You appear to be resisting this idea but if God can have any effect in the physical world then that effect can be observed and that brings it into the purview of science.

So for example if the faith-healers took their trade out of the theatrical setting they prefer and practiced in a hospital under proper scrutiny and metrics then we could see if there was a real effect and that would count as evidence towards the hypothesis that there was an interventionist God.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Beady,

Honestly trying to separate religion and science is being apologist.

As has been shown to you over and again if religious claims have physical effects then they CONFLICT with science.

Your arguments sound like you JUST DON’T WANT IT TO !

Clearly BS commenced this thread to show MAINTSTREAM religious belief is impossible if you think critically or label your self a sceptic!

Obviously if you want to use some esoteric basis for God.. (Not one of the mainstream religions) then you could still maintain that you are a critical thinker.. but the simple fact is the vast majority of people who believe in God (so close to 100% that it isn’t worth arguing about) do maintain that one of the mainstream religions is correct.

Now I guarantee NO-ONE here can defend the tenets of a mainstream religion and declare themselves a critical thinker without becoming a laughing stock !

 

[crimresearch]

Or (as repeatedly shown) they could do exactly what BS did, and craft a definition so narrow as to only allow examples that prove their case.

So what's the point?

 

[jmercer]

Too many damned "re"'s!

If anybody claims that God is in fact real then they are supermiposing religion onto science.

God is - as defined - supernatural. Therefore God has nothing to do with science, which is the process of understanding the natural.

You appear to be resisting this idea but if God can have any effect in the physical world then that effect can be observed and that brings it into the purview of science.

There are a few problems with this position:

1) "can have any effect" is strictly correct - the potential exists, but not necessarily anything more. If no action is taken by God in a location where it can be observed, there's nothing for science to observe.

2) Supernatural acts that defy the laws of physics would not be subject to the purview of science, other than for science to say "We don't understand how this happened." (Which, by the way, happens quite frequently in science. ) In fact, science wouldn't have a toolset usable for understanding such activity... that's why they're called miracles.

3) If God restricts His actions to the non-physical - the subjective (or mental, or emotional, or spiritual, whatever), then science also has no toolset for analyzing such activity.

By common definition, God (pick one, any one) supposedly exists at a level beyond our comprehension. This is utterly annoying; it doesn't lend itself to analysis, and it's particuarly frustrating to skeptics because it makes validating or debunking the claim of God's existence impossible.

 

[jmercer]

Beady,

Honestly trying to separate religion and science is being apologist.

As has been shown to you over and again if religious claims have physical effects then they CONFLICT with science.

(I realize this was addressed to Beady, but I just responded to a similar comment, so I figured I'd offer my view on this as well. )

I disagree, and I believe this to be nothing more than wishful thinking. If I listen to a beautiful piece of music, there's a related physical effect. Does this mean that my feelings concerning the music are now within the purview of science?

Hardly. Only the physical reaction can be scientifically measured and evaluated. Science has no ability to do the same thing for emotion. By the viewpoint you're supporting, AT, emotions cannot exist because they cannot be evidenced, are non-physical, etc. (Also, please see my post above to Robin.)

Clearly BS commenced this thread to show MAINTSTREAM religious belief is impossible if you think critically or label your self a sceptic!

That's not how I (and many others in this thread) perceived it.

Obviously if you want to use some esoteric basis for God.. (Not one of the mainstream religions) then you could still maintain that you are a critical thinker.. but the simple fact is the vast majority of people who believe in God (so close to 100% that it isn’t worth arguing about) do maintain that one of the mainstream religions is correct.

Now I guarantee NO-ONE here can defend the tenets of a mainstream religion and declare themselves a critical thinker without becoming a laughing stock !

I agree. However, BSI made it quite clear that in his opinion that one cannot believe in God and also be a "true" skeptic - quite a different claim from defending the tenets of a given religion.

But really, I am talking about smart people who consciously decide to suspend their skepticism so they can retain their belief in "God."

This was his third or fourth post after the OP - so it's clear that his ultimate message is "If you want to be a 'true skeptic', you cannot believe in a God". In other words, only atheists can be skeptics.

Are you also prepared to make that claim? If so, you'll need to prove it. BSI certainly hasn't been able to.

 

[AOK Tiger]

JMercer,

I disagree, and I believe this to be nothing more than wishful thinking. If I listen to a beautiful piece of music, there's a related physical effect. Does this mean that my feelings concerning the music are now within the purview of science?

Feelings and emotions are made up concepts for human reactions. You REACT to something that is entirely physical .. the sound.. your reaction and the sound itself are entirely within the realms of science.

Hardly. Only the physical reaction can be scientifically measured and evaluated. Science has no ability to do the same thing for emotion. By the viewpoint you're supporting, AT, emotions cannot exist because they cannot be evidenced, are non-physical, etc. (Also, please see my post above to Robin.)

They can, have been and are measured all the time. Ones spiritual “feeling” that there is a God is just a label. It is just normal animal survival instinct complicated by intelligence. You do not want to die.. your mind invents stuff so you can live on = almost every human concept of god !

That's not how I (and many others in this thread) perceived it.

I explained that for all intents and purposes that the argument against God revolves around mainstream religious versions of God. BS used the term God but EVERYTHING he has posted since has shown his problem is with the “stupid” gods.. therefore it is just plain wrong to keep arguing that acceptance of a more logical God is OK.

I agree. However, BSI made it quite clear that in his opinion that one cannot believe in God and also be a "true" skeptic - quite a different claim from defending the tenets of a given religion.

As I said above BS has made it even CLEARER since that post that the problem is with mainstream “gods”.

This was his third or fourth post after the OP - so it's clear that his ultimate message is "If you want to be a 'true skeptic', you cannot believe in a God". In other words, only atheists can be skeptics.

Well I would see his message more as.. “if you retain belief in any of the mainstream Gods you MUST suspend your critical thinking.. if you do this you cannot claim to be a “true” sceptic.

I would add that the term “atheist” IS the only sensible term to use. In modern parlance the term agnostic has come to mean.. “I sorta believe in God just aint sure which one”.. atheist has come to mean “I think all current God versions are as believable as “the flying spaghetti monster”… now of the 2 “atheist” fits most of us.

Are you also prepared to make that claim? If so, you'll need to prove it. BSI certainly hasn't been able to

Absolutely…

I claim if you believe in a God mostly based on a mainstream religion then you have completely suspended your critical thinking skills and I would claim you CANNOT call yourself a sceptic.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Oh.. and prove it…

Well give me the mainstream God version you believe in and I set about proving it has as much evidence as the “flying spaghetti monster”

 

[Robin]

God is - as defined - supernatural. Therefore God has nothing to do with science, which is the process of understanding the natural.

How do you define natural? Where is the boundary to the supernatural? I am not aware that science comes with built in limitations. If there was some observation that contradicted an existing scientific model then the scientific community would not just throw up their hands and say "not our department". The realm of science is anything that is at least indirectly observable. If God has any interaction with us then God could be studied by science.

There are a few problems with this position:

1) "can have any effect" is strictly correct - the potential exists, but not necessarily anything more. If no action is taken by God in a location where it can be observed, there's nothing for science to observe.

OK, if God exists but sits on his hands and does nothing then science cannot study it. If God does something only when nobody is looking then science cannot study it.

So if God does nothing, or hides his tracks then science would not be able, in a practical sense, to study it, but clearly if God can have some effect in the physical world then science could study God.

2) Supernatural acts that defy the laws of physics would not be subject to the purview of science, other than for science to say "We don't understand how this happened." (Which, by the way, happens quite frequently in science. ) In fact, science wouldn't have a toolset usable for understanding such activity... that's why they're called miracles.

But if scientists said "We don't understand how this happened" to every observation that contradicted some existing scientific model and just left it at that then science would not exist. Science does not sit round endlessly repeating and confirming observations that already have adequate models.

Actually miracles could be studied very easily. For example if you had a double blind prayer study and the patients in the prayed for group had a significantly higher survival rate than the control group then you could say for sure that prayer had an effect.

3) If God restricts His actions to the non-physical - the subjective (or mental, or emotional, or spiritual, whatever), then science also has no toolset for analyzing such activity.

Depends - if there was some actual claim then mental and emotional artifacts can still be studied. Again double blind prayer studies might be useful - you could get people to pray for some particular emotional state or some particular mental image and then get a prayed to group to complete a questionnaire. Even if you can't study the emotion directly any correlation would be positive evidence.

Of course this would be useless if God refused to co-operate with the study - that is not really relevant - such things are potentially within the purview of science.

By common definition, God (pick one, any one) supposedly exists at a level beyond our comprehension. This is utterly annoying; it doesn't lend itself to analysis, and it's particuarly frustrating to skeptics because it makes validating or debunking the claim of God's existence impossible.

Not annoying or frustrating to me really. If somebody makes a claim and then the evidence becomes, for some reason or another, impossible to obtain, then I say, OK, come back when you really have something. I can't see the point in taking some claim seriously if the evidence suddenly disappears when you ask for it.

If the dog eats the homework I will say, OK, show it to me when you have re-done it. If the dog eats the homework every single time then I am justified in believing there is no homework.

 

[Robin]

Re: Too many damned "re"'s!

1) "can have any effect" is strictly correct - the potential exists, but not necessarily anything more. If no action is taken by God in a location where it can be observed, there's nothing for science to observe.

....

3) If God restricts His actions to the non-physical - the subjective (or mental, or emotional, or spiritual, whatever), then science also has no toolset for analyzing such activity.

Let's put this another way. Suppose I claim that I can predict the name of the winner of any horse race with 90% accuracy. Now suppose for reasons of my own I don't use this power to benefit myself or anybody else, so I never demonstrate it.

So can I claim my powers are beyond the purview of science since science could never study my powers as I will always refuse to co-operate with those studies?

Clearly not. So an entity with all power in heaven and earth could certainly produce a demonstrable effect that scientists could study and is within the purview of science, even if for reasons of its own it has decided never to co-operate with such studies.