Can I have both Faith and Reason?

[ebia]

Do you believe God answers prayers, ebia?

If we lived in such a universe, it would be an easy matter to test that theory using standard scientific methods. The results would indicate the reality or non-reality of god.

Only if:
a. whether or not a prayer has been answered is clearly determinable - this is not generally the case
b. the fact that you are subjecting the cases statistical analysis won't influence the result - "Do not put the Lord your God to the test" might suggest otherwise.
c. there are no other statistical issues clouding the test (see my example in my previous post).

That's simply not true. God can be treated as a theory, just like other theories - and the theory can be tested.

God isn't a theory, but a person who makes choices, who is or may be free of basic assumptions like time, straightforward logic, and of whom we don't have sufficient information to form a theory, let alone test it.

ID is an attempt to form a theory about what the universe would look like if there were a designer God. Funnily enough it looks exactly like what atheiests say the universe would look like if there wasn't.

It used to be thought that the universe was awash in something called The Ether - a strange, invisible substance that gave light waves a medium through which to travel.

Experiments related to the speed of light demonstrated that the ether did not exist.

Because ether, if it existed, was a precisely definable thing that would exhibit certain testable properties in a consistant way and we knew exactly how it's existance would effect the speed of light.

If any kind of 'spirit' - God, ghost, phantom - interacts with the real-world of matter and energy, that interaction can be detected.

No it can't because its presence is inherent in the very existance of that matter and energy and it's behaviour. It's the very Word spoken that makes it, and makes it behave the way it does. What you are trying to detect is an external, interventionist, deity. Not the Judeo-Christian God.

If it can be detected, it can be measured. If it can be measured, the results can be used to test the validity of the theory.

You don't have, and can't form, a verifiable scientific theory that describes the (Christian understanding of) God.

 

[ebia]

The only way to show that prayer actually works is to conduct properly cotrolled experiments.

As soon as you start setting up prayers not for their own sake but as part of an experiement you are bound to affect the result. As I said, we aren't dealing with an impersonal force but a personal God; one who expects us to pray for particular purposes, and one who is pretty explicit about testing him.

 

[John54]

Natural processes have been being explained for several hundred years and belief in God has not been diminished.

It's diminished amongst the section of the population that best understands the explanations of those natural processes - scientists.

There are many emotional reasons for wanting God to be real. As I've said elsewhere, I feel them myself. And of course, the idea of God gives easy answers to complex questions. It's not surprising that religion is so robust.

John

 

[ebia]

As soon as you start setting up prayers not for their own sake but as part of an experiement you are bound to affect the result. As I said, we aren't dealing with an impersonal force but a personal God; one who expects us to pray for particular purposes, and one who is pretty explicit about testing him.

Quoting myself to add the point that I forgot to include this morning and is more important than what I did say:

The only way to show that prayer actually works is to conduct properly cotrolled experiments.

Setting aside the objections I raised above, let's suppose that we conducted this experiment, and it showed up, for example, that people being prayed for got better significantly faster than other people. The proper reaction of science to this finding would not be to accept that God answers prayer - that would be equivalent to science having accepted that lightning is the result of Thor throwing thunderbolts. Science always has to reject the supernatural answer and keep searching for a natural explanation. As soon as science starts accepting supernatural explanations for anything it stops, so it must not ever do that.

For example, there have been statistical studies showing that religious people live more contented lives. Does science accept that as evidence for God - of course not - it then starts looking for psychological reasons why religious behaviour might make people more contented.

Science can't accept Godidit as the answer to any question, simply because it's potentially the answer to every question. Science has to suppose that every question can be answered without resorting to God/the supernatural, and keep searching until it finds such an answer. That's all part of the enlightenment philosophy that allows science to do its job so successfully; it's not a flaw in science but a necessary limitiation of its method.

 

[John54]

Science can't accept Godidit as the answer to any question, simply because it's potentially the answer to every question. Science has to suppose that every question can be answered without resorting to God/the supernatural, and keep searching until it finds such an answer. That's all part of the enlightenment philosophy that allows science to do its job so successfully; it's not a flaw in science but a necessary limitiation of its method.

That's an excellent point, ebia - but I don't think it's correct. If science was ever confronted by evidence that pointed clearly towards a supernatural cause, it would have to conclude that supernatural causes may exist. It would have to change its basic assumptions, and live with the consequences.

That's what evidence-based systems have to do.

There's an obvious natural explanation for the observation (if it's true) that believers in God lead happier, healthier lives - but as I noted in the other thread:

If the traditional Christian God exists and he interacts with humanity - answering prayers, for example - then it should be very easy for us to detect the results of his interactions.

Imagine that the Catholics have it right and the true God is the God that Catholics believe in. It would be easy to conduct an experiment - a properly-controlled, scientific experiment - in which people of all faiths were asked to pray for the sick.

If only the Catholic prayers worked, that would be pretty conclusive proof that there was a God, and he was a Catholic God.

If I was shown evidence like that, and I couldn't fault the experimental design, I'd seriously begin to doubt my decision to accept the atheist position.

Evidence like that would force science to accept the notion that the supernatural exists. Not God, perhaps, but some mechanism that could not be explained by natural means. It would have no choice.

John

 

[ebia]

That's an excellent point, ebia - but I don't think it's correct. If science was ever confronted by evidence that pointed clearly towards a supernatural cause, it would have to conclude that supernatural causes may exist. It would have to change its basic assumptions, and live with the consequences.

No it wouldn't, because it can't tell the difference between supernatural cause and natural cause we can't yet think of. If science were willing to go that route it would have given up on much investigation long ago. It's because scientists haven't been willing to accept it that they have put in the hard graft to keep going until they can explain whatever it is naturally.

That's what evidence-based systems have to do.

There's an obvious natural explanation for the observation (if it's true) that believers in God lead happier, healthier lives - but as I noted in the other thread:

If the traditional Christian God exists and he interacts with humanity - answering prayers, for example - then it should be very easy for us to detect the results of his interactions.

Imagine that the Catholics have it right and the true God is the God that Catholics believe in. It would be easy to conduct an experiment - a properly-controlled, scientific experiment - in which people of all faiths were asked to pray for the sick.

If only the Catholic prayers worked, that would be pretty conclusive proof that there was a God, and he was a Catholic God.

If I was shown evidence like that, and I couldn't fault the experimental design, I'd seriously begin to doubt my decision to accept the atheist position.

Evidence like that would force science to accept the notion that the supernatural exists. Not God, perhaps, but some mechanism that could not be explained by natural means. It would have no choice.

John

As I've said, such an experiement would not be expected to succeed since it sets up artificial prayer - the prayers are for the purpose of testing God, so God's proper response would be in response to that objective, not in response to healing the sick at all.

But let us say you did run the experiment, and it did show up those prayed for by catholics doing significantly better, scientists would still (quite rightly) keep looking for a natural explanation. The fact that we can't yet set a possible natural explanation doesn't mean there isn't one any more than the fact that once upon a time nobody could see a possible natural mechanism for the planets stopped people working on it until they figured it out. Science is built upon not accepting anything except a natural explanation: its called Methodogical Naturalism:

[...], methodological naturalism is, in the words of Steven D. Schafersman, "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it … science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success (although science does have metaphysical implications), but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is." [4]

(emphasis mine)

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Since you're taking the science route, I'll go along w/ it and ask some further rational questions:

General:
-If living matter did rise from non-living matter, where does the non living matter come from?
-When is the last time it has been observed that a piece of non-living matter transformed into a living one? (ie why does evolution not constantly continue in such forms?)
-If the non-living matter came from the "Big Bang" matter, where did that matter come from?
-If Newton's laws of physics hold true (every action has an equal and opposite reaction), what was the opposite reaction of the "Big Bang"?
-How does our universe continue to expand? Where is it expanding to? What is it expanding into? What is on the other side of the edge of the universe?
-Since the planets are held in orbit by gravity, what keeps the law of gravity working properly and consistently?
-How is the earth positioned the perfect distance from the sun to support life?

More Specific:
-Who spoke to Moses from a burning bush?
-Who promised Abraham a son and delivered (no pun intended)?
-Who spoke to me in my bedroom one night when I heard an audible voice answer my question?
-Where is Christ's body now?
-If it was all fake, why did no one point out that the body was still in the tomb at the beginning of Christianity?

These are all rational, logical questions that lead to faith responses. For the general questions, if one answer is explained, it just leads to another question about where that came from. Ultimately, I believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and I believe that He is before all things and in Him all things hold together.

For the specific questions, these all lead to faith responses to. Moses had faith in his rational quesiton, "Who is talking to me from that bush?" and led the Israelites out of Egypt. Abraham had faith in the One who told him to "go to a land which I will show you" and he went. I have faith in the One who answered me. And I believe that Christ's body is not there because He has risen.

Now I could reason that Moses and Abraham made their stories up, but I can't deny what I heard. I think personally experiencing God is the best logical support to my faith.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

...If only the Catholic prayers worked, that would be pretty conclusive proof that there was a God, and he was a Catholic God.

If I was shown evidence like that, and I couldn't fault the experimental design, I'd seriously begin to doubt my decision to accept the atheist position.

Evidence like that would force science to accept the notion that the supernatural exists. Not God, perhaps, but some mechanism that could not be explained by natural means. It would have no choice.

John

There was an experiment like this once, but you'll probably say that it is biased based on the source. (I Kings 18:20-39) And there were also seven plagues in Egypt that happened to coincide with Moses telling Pharoah YHWH-God said it would happen, each plague a direct blow at one of the Egyptian gods.

20. So Ahab sent a message among all the sons of Israel and brought the prophets together at Mount Carmel.21. Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people did not answer him a word.22. Then Elijah said to the people, "I alone am left a prophet of the LORD, but Baal's prophets are 450 men.23. "Now let them give us two oxen; and let them choose one ox for themselves and cut it up, and place it on the wood, but put no fire under it; and I will prepare the other ox and lay it on the wood, and I will not put a fire under it. 24. "Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD, and the God who answers by fire, He is God." And all the people said, "That is a good idea."25. So Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one ox for yourselves and prepare it first for you are many, and call on the name of your god, but put no fire under it."26. Then they took the ox which was given them and they prepared it and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon saying, "O Baal, answer us." But there was no voice and no one answered. And they leaped about the altar which they made.27. It came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, "Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened."28. So they cried with a loud voice and cut themselves according to their custom with swords and lances until the blood gushed out on them.29. When midday was past, they raved until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice; but there was no voice, no one answered, and no one paid attention.30. Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come near to me." So all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD which had been torn down.31. Elijah took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, "Israel shall be your name."32. So with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he made a trench around the altar, large enough to hold two measures of seed.33. Then he arranged the wood and cut the ox in pieces and laid it on the wood.34. And he said, "Fill four pitchers with water and pour it on the burnt offering and on the wood." And he said, "Do it a second time," and they did it a second time. And he said, "Do it a third time," and they did it a third time.35. The water flowed around the altar and he also filled the trench with water.36. At the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, Elijah the prophet came near and said, "O LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, today let it be known that You are God in Israel and that I am Your servant and I have done all these things at Your word.37. "Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that You, O LORD, are God, and that You have turned their heart back again."38. Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.39. When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, "The LORD, He is God; the LORD, He is God."

 

[ChristIsTHEKing]

Hello John, you have quite a conversation going here

I myself am an analytical thinker and since you are a logical thinker as well I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that science has solidly demonstrated evolution? This is still just theory, and many latter century physicists side-step it because of the number of holes and problems surrounding it. You state you want to put your belief in a system of reality yet the very basis you've mentioned cannot provide everything you need. For me, it would take much greater leap of faith to believe in a humanistic system as it stands with no macro answers than it does for a faith that has more external documented support and fulfilled prophecies than any other writing in history. Another major problem that many of the greatest physicists and well-known athiests grappled with and in the end left them questioning their own beliefs is the basis for morality. Science can't provide for it and post-modern humanism doesn't have an answer for it. Given a humanistic world view, there would be no difference between a Hitler and a Mother Teresa.
I challenge you to seriously research the claims of Christianity, not just from the standpoint of unbelieving authors, and finally to speak to those that can work out questions you have and see for you own conclusions. Many staunch hard-core athiests have tried to disprove the claims made in the Bible, and they ended up finding overwhelming proof for Christ and became Christians. Remember, by law there can only be one truth.
I would recommend Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, and writings by Josh McDowells, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, John C Polkinghorne to start your study. Then go through the book of John with someone near you that can answer any questions you might have.
I pray you find the truth in the person of Jesus Christ.

Science has demonstrated how life evolves from simple forms to more complex ones - but we don't yet understand how the first living matter arose from non-living matter.

If that problem is eventually solved, would that really strengthen your faith in God, Criada? Even though it would remove one of the main arguments currently used by theists trying to explain why they believe?

John

 

[TheLivingWater]

In the thread entitled An Honest Question, Criada said:



This was my reply.

Yes, that's the core of my problem, Criada.

I can't see any merit in faith. I read what so many others have said about it in the past and find myself nodding in agreement.

"Faith is the effort to believe what your common sense tells you is not true." Elbert Hubbard

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." H. L. Mencken

"Faith is believing what you know ain’t so." Mark Twain

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley

"[Children] are taught that it is a virtue to accept statements without adequate evidence, which leaves them a prey to quacks of every kind in later life, and makes it very difficult for them to accept the methods of thought which are successful in science." J. B. S. Haldane

"Because religious training means credulity training, churches should not be surprised to find that so many of their congregations accept astrology as readily as theology, or a channeled Atlantean priest as readily as a biblical prophet." Barbara G. Walker

"The most pernicious of absurdities is that weak, blind, stupid faith is better than the constant practice of every human virtue." Walter Savage Landor

"I do not support religion because it demands that we give up our most important human asset, the ability to question. It demands that we simply believe. Isn't that true of any dictator, of any totalitarian society? Insofar as social development is concerned, nothing is of greater importance than the human function of questioning. . . . Questioning led to the development of civilization." Vladimir Pozner

Statements like the above make complete sense to me. I trust reason in every other area of my life. To allow faith in through the door and kick reason out of the window when it comes to the most important area of all seems crazy.

* * *

I thought this core problem was worth its own thread, so here it is.

Is it possible, given the above, to have Faith in the concept of God without throwing away the faculty of reason?

Any thoughts?

John

Reason is Faith.
It depends how much reason you have thou...

 

[Faith In God]

Is it possible, given the above, to have Faith in the concept of God without throwing away the faculty of reason?

You can have faith in the concept of God without throwing away reason. Heck, lots of atheists do that. o.o

I believe what you're actually asking (correct me if I'm wrong) is:
Can one trust in God without throwing away his reason?

The answer is yes. In fact, one of Jesus' words was "You believe because you have seen: blessed is he who has not seen, and yet believes."
He is basically saying that those who have reason to doubt and yet believe anyway have more to their credit, because they chose to have faith even though they have reason to doubt.

Remember the story of Gideon? God told him to get an army. So Gideon had several tens of thousands. God said weed out those who wanted to go home. That left him with a few thousand.

But then God weeded out a large number of those men by testing them: those who bring water up to their mouths like a dog brings water to his mouth with his tongue, will stay. Those who dunk thier whole mouths in go home.
Why?
Because there was a war going on! Those had their heads up were keeping an eye out while they drank. They had prudence: they realized the severity of the situation. Israel was at war with a country who VASTLY outnumbered them.
The foolish men were willing to go to war, but they were willing because they were foolish. IE following God because they didn't know any better.
But the prudent men not only knew how bad they were off: they decided to fight for God anyway.

Their sense of reason made faith harder, but it is what pleases God: to have faith in Him, being fully aware of the reasons NOT to have faith.
The men of old had faith in the God of old they had heard about, even though He had not done miracles in a great many years (Gideon actually asked God about this: it's in Judges, if you'd like to read the story): they knew He was out there somewhere and decided to have faith in Him.

 

[John54]

As I've said, such an experiement would not be expected to succeed since it sets up artificial prayer - the prayers are for the purpose of testing God, so God's proper response would be in response to that objective, not in response to healing the sick at all.

You've illustrated one of the main things that bothers me about Christianity.

If I wanted to construct a belief system that nobody could question, I'd build into it various features. One feature would be the one above - testing the foundations of the system is forbidden, and anyone trying to do so will get false results.

Christianity has several of these features, including 'God moves in mysterious ways' and the notion that he is a concept outside of conventional reality, so none of the rules of reality apply to him.

The value of such a system is that it insulates it from enquiry - but that's also its weakness. Under such a system, anything goes, and if anything goes the system is disconnected from the real world.

Some people can live with that, but I can't. It turns religion into a fairytale.

But let us say you did run the experiment, and it did show up those prayed for by catholics doing significantly better, scientists would still (quite rightly) keep looking for a natural explanation. The fact that we can't yet set a possible natural explanation doesn't mean there isn't one any more than the fact that once upon a time nobody could see a possible natural mechanism for the planets stopped people working on it until they figured it out. Science is built upon not accepting anything except a natural explanation: its called Methodogical Naturalism:

Science has overturned fundamental assumptions in the past when the observed facts have shown those assumtions to be incorrect. That's the strength of science: it is always, always prepared to rethink if the facts refute the theory.

I agree that Methodological Naturalism is one of the most fundamental assumtions of all - and the very thing that has made science so spectacularly successful.

BUT

... if there were enough contradictory observational facts that indicated the supernatural was a reality, eventually science would question its own foundations. It would be reluctant to do so, because there is so much evidence in favour of naturalism, but if the supernatural continued to raise its ghostly head, and if science repeatedly failed to explain it away, it would have to reassess the very core of scientific naturalism.

John

 

[Rafael]

It is curious how many men of genius level intellect believe what some call down in reproach as a "fairy tale", but there is no limit to what anybody of any proven or lack of intellect can say about the evidence found in creation that speaks of design men still cannot explain or reproduce using their science or their scientific methods. Just by it being method of man, it is automatically limited to the dimensions of men, and therefore giving it no real way of truthfully measuring in a laboraratory condition some of the simplist of things found in our universe and reality. Men still have differences of opinion and trouble, "scientifically", explaining what mass is, and by following science with a few magazines like Scientific America, it is easy to see that man does not really have a great knowledge of the simple but profound powers that govern our universe and reality. When speaking of these powers, to define them, man has to back peddle and change over and over without ever proving much with or without their scientific methods. Let's see man make a tree or even a so called "simple life form" such as an amoeba that has small components that resemble engines on a motorboat..... It seems that if we are so smart and are able to identify proteins and atomic structures of these little "simple" designs, then we would be able to show power over them by at least reproducing one under laboratory conditons using the scientific method..... So far, ony God can give life, but just as you find it easy for us to say that God is so much more knowledgeable or "mysterious" to us in His power, the atheist can just as easily attribute all creation to a multitude of accidents with the wave of a hand just like magic in a fairy tale....Seems like a good sci-fi fairy tale could at least count time as relative to something other than feeble linear timelines of "billions and billions" of years.... Perhaps a wornhole where time becomes zero, without past or future,,,,, but when God enters the subject it seems that where there were at first supposedly open minds, they begin closing "scientifically" or any other way as soon as anyone or anything smarter than man is brought into the subject...? God is possible scientifically as is timelessness, and many other things once thought impossible, yet He is automatically limited within the minds of men because they are limited to only what dimensions they want to see. The science of theoretical mathematics now shows us that a unified theory is possible, but only works out with ten dimensions. That makes our reality of the seen (three dimensions or four while looking at a clock) outnumbered by the unseen, yet we, as man, still prefer to believe only what we can and are limited to see. That's our limited nature as man, at the time being, caught and cursed with time instead of having it as first intentionaly designed by God as His tool for making a world to reveal Himself to a potential family of people in His image.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The value of such a system is that it insulates it from enquiry - but that's also its weakness. Under such a system, anything goes, and if anything goes the system is disconnected from the real world.

Some people can live with that, but I can't. It turns religion into a fairytale.

The problem with this is bible prophecy, Christ fullfilled over 300 concerning His coming, there were over 500 witnesses to the risen Christ - The prophecies concerning Israel once again being a nation have come true also , name one other completely lost nation for over 500 years even that once again became a nation?

If God wanted us only to believe blindly - those things and then some would not have been given to us to test. Look at the little state of Israel , the bible says it would become a 'cup of trembling' for all nations - does not the world look to solve the problems of its peace on almost a daily basis? Thats something you can get your head around and its all right in the bible foretold thousands of years before it happened.

 

[ebia]

You've illustrated one of the main things that bothers me about Christianity.

If I wanted to construct a belief system that nobody could question, I'd build into it various features. One feature would be the one above - testing the foundations of the system is forbidden, and anyone trying to do so will get false results.

Well, the command only applies to believers, and those are given plenty of valid ways of confirming or falsifying their beliefs, so your objection doesn't really hold water. Sorry, but God is not obliged to perform tricks on demand to impress people.

Christianity has several of these features, including 'God moves in mysterious ways' and the notion that he is a concept outside of conventional reality, so none of the rules of reality apply to him.

That's a restriction that is a conseqnce of the scientific method and the manner of post-enlightenment thinking. It's hardly Christianity's fault if people invent a strictly limited method of thinking and then complain that it won't work if they try and apply it to something their basic working assumptions assume doesn't exist!

The value of such a system is that it insulates it from enquiry - but that's also its weakness. Under such a system, anything goes, and if anything goes the system is disconnected from the real world.

Christianity has plenty of limiting factors and direction and scope for enquiry, it just doesn't fit modernism (or post modernism).

Some people can live with that, but I can't. It turns religion into a fairytale.

Meaningless rhetoric. If you are after a debate you are in the wrong forum.

Science has overturned fundamental assumptions in the past when the observed facts have shown those assumtions to be incorrect. That's the strength of science: it is always, always prepared to rethink if the facts refute the theory.

One assumption it cannot

I agree that Methodological Naturalism is one of the most fundamental assumtions of all - and the very thing that has made science so spectacularly successful.

BUT

... if there were enough contradictory observational facts that indicated the supernatural was a reality, eventually science would question its own foundations. It would be reluctant to do so, because there is so much evidence in favour of naturalism, but if the supernatural continued to raise its ghostly head, and if science repeatedly failed to explain it away, it would have to reassess the very core of scientific naturalism.

John[/quote]
No it would not because without methodolocial naturalism science collapses. It's would have disproved its very method and so, paradoxically, it's disproof wouldn't even be reliable. Science doesn't need naturalism to be true, but it needs to assume it is even if it is not.

 

[Faith In God]

I'd like to ask the reader's indulgence and read my last post while I answer a bit of this.

Christianity has several of these features, including 'God moves in mysterious ways'

That is a cop-out, usually. In fact, on of the Scriptures many misled Christians cite when faced with a "mysterious situation" is:
well, "God's ways are not [our] ways."
...in actuality, the Scripture there is "My [God's] ways are not your ways," and He is addressing the wicked: not God's own people.
According to Jesus, we are to be of one mind with Him, not of a different way of thinking.

and the notion that he is a concept outside of conventional reality, so none of the rules of reality apply to him.

The value of such a system is that it insulates it from enquiry - but that's also its weakness. Under such a system, anything goes, and if anything goes the system is disconnected from the real world.

The thing about that (and a poster here named Calminian can explain it much better than I) is that the particular "real world" you are talking about is only what we scientifically presume the real world is:
and we cannot scientifically presume a supernatural God: the very concept of "supernatural" makes it outside of scientific knowledge and testability.
Yes, God is disconnected from that real world.

That does not mean you have to forsake reason: that means you have to take God's perrogative into account: His Godhead.

... if there were enough contradictory observational facts that indicated the supernatural was a reality, eventually science would question its own foundations.

No, it would not: it would encorporate this "supernaturalness" into what science understands as "nature." And thus it would cease to be supernatural.

Do you see the problem?

God is not a God of equations and formulae: He is a God of experience.