Symbolic Logic Formalization
(1) 
Christian revelation yields reliable, anticipatory, clarity-seeking claims about the natural world.
Annotation: Hypothesis 
says a deity-backed source should routinely get nature right (often ahead of time).
(2) 
Religious claims about nature are sociocultural products, while durable reliability comes from methodological naturalism.
Annotation: Hypothesis 
predicts human, time-bound origins for supernatural claims and superior performance from evidence-driven methods.
(3) 
Trajectory: the domain of supernatural explanations shrinks over centuries while the domain of natural explanations expands.
Annotation: 
encodes the paper’s “shrinking red / expanding blue” pattern across astronomy, medicine, psychology, and cosmology.
(4) 
Failure set: historically salient Christian supernatural claims about nature are repeatedly overturned by inquiry.
Annotation: 
summarizes reversals of geocentrism, disease-as-punishment, possession accounts of mental illness, and young-Earth creation.
(5) 
Predictive success: naturalistic theories yield accurate novel predictions and effective technological interventions.
Annotation: 
captures eclipses, vaccines, antibiotics, radiometric dating, and evolutionary predictions working in practice.
(6) 
Absence of anticipations: scriptures contain no independent, specific anticipations of later-confirmed natural facts (e.g., germs, heliocentrism).
Annotation: 
notes missing forward-looking wins one would expect if were true.
(7) 
Moving goalposts: post hoc reinterpretations relocate supernatural claims into not-yet-illuminated domains.
Annotation: 
formalizes the shift to vaguer or insulated areas after earlier falsifications.
(8) 
Annotation: 
is the observed conjunction of trajectory, failures, naturalistic success, non-anticipation, and goalpost-shifting.
(9) 
Annotation: If were true, we would expect no shrinkage of the supernatural domain, few-to-no historical reversals, some anticipatory successes latex[/latex], and no systematic retreat.
(10) 
Annotation: If is true, the exact observed pattern is expected.
(11) 
Annotation: The observed world is far likelier under than under .
(12) 
Annotation: The Bayes factor 
strongly favors .
(13) 
Annotation: Posterior odds equal prior odds multiplied by the Bayes factor.
(14) 
Annotation: For any non-negligible prior not dogmatically favoring , is posterior-preferred given .
(15) 
Annotation: If were right, we should be able to name at least one real field 
where a specific supernatural claim keeps making testable predictions that repeatedly come true.
(16) 
Annotation: In fact, after surveying candidate fields, there is no domain where a supernatural claim delivers stable, repeatable predictive wins.
(17) 
Annotation: Likewise, there is no scriptural statement 
that clearly and specifically anticipated a natural fact and was later confirmed by independent evidence.
(18) \land (16) \Rightarrow E_F \Rightarrow E_A[/latex]
Annotation: The lack of enduring successes yields ; the lack of anticipations yields .
(19) 
Annotation: The total evidence pattern implies a large likelihood ratio favoring .
(20) 
Annotation: Given , is strongly favored over .
◉ A plain English walkthrough of the symbolic logic above.
#1 We’re comparing two ideas: (revelation really tracks reality and should give clear, reliable guidance about nature) versus (religious beliefs mainly come from normal social/psychological forces, while reliable results come from evidence-based inquiry).
#2 What would lead us to expect: frequent specific anticipations about nature, broad convergence among believers on core claims, very few historical reversals, and no need to keep retreating or reinterpreting failed claims.
#3 What would lead us to expect: the “supernatural” territory shrinks as science grows, many revered claims get overturned, naturalistic methods produce working predictions and technologies, scriptures don’t contain clear early hits on later science, and defenders move the target after failures.
#4 What we actually see, component by component:
• : the supernatural domain keeps shrinking as natural explanations expand.
• : high-profile supernatural claims are repeatedly reversed.
• : naturalistic inquiry keeps delivering accurate predictions and useful tech.
• : missing anticipations—no clear, specific, later-confirmed scientific facts in scripture.
• : goalposts shift after disconfirmation.
#5 Call that whole bundle . It matches what predicted and clashes with what predicted.
#6 A quick reality check behind the scenes: if were right, we should find at least one real field with ongoing, testable wins tied to a specific supernatural claim; we don’t. Likewise, we should find at least one clear scriptural anticipation later confirmed; we don’t. Those two facts reinforce and .
#7 Bottom line: the world looks the way says it should, not the way says it should. So the total evidence counts strongly in favor of over .
◉ Flowing Narrative Summary
We’re testing two ideas about where religious claims come from. Call the first one : if a God is really revealing truths about the world, those revelations should line up with how nature actually works—and sometimes even get there first. Call the second one : most religious beliefs are shaped by culture and psychology, while the methods that reliably discover facts about nature are evidence-based inquiry.
If were right, you’d expect clear, specific hints in scripture that later science confirms, steady agreement among believers on core factual claims, very few historical reversals, and no habit of redefining the claim after it runs into trouble. If were right, you’d expect the opposite pattern: the space covered by “God did it” explanations would keep shrinking as scientific explanations grow; many once-confident supernatural claims would be overturned; evidence-based methods would keep making correct predictions and delivering useful technologies; scripture would not contain specific, later-confirmed scientific insights; and defenders would move the target after failures.
History matches , point for point. Over time, natural explanations push back the need for supernatural ones. High-profile supernatural claims about the natural world don’t hold up. Evidence-based science keeps sticking its neck out with risky predictions that then succeed, and it builds tools that work. The scriptures don’t supply the kind of specific, testable “early hits” you’d expect under . And after a claim fails, its meaning often gets softened or relocated into a vaguer, not-yet-testable area.
There’s also a simple reality check. If were true, we should be able to point to at least one real field where a specific supernatural claim keeps making testable predictions that pan out. We can’t. Likewise, if were true, we should find at least one clear statement in scripture that anticipated a scientific fact later confirmed by independent evidence. We don’t. Both checks point the same way.
Put all that together—call the whole bundle of observations —and the verdict is straightforward: the world looks the way says it should, not the way says it should. So supports over .
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment