Being Norman Tebbit must be marvellous

In any fight against the violent hostile forces who threaten peace and security, it is the right of British people to go peacefully about their business which should trump the rights of those determined to rob them of that right.

… In both cases [secret evidence in civil trials, and Internet-tapping — PJW] it seems to me that what should be at issue is not the principle, but the restrictions which should be put in place to safeguard the rights of the innocent. (src)

The debates aren't about the principle of protecting all of us from unwarranted government intrusion (in the case of Internet-tapping), or of ensuring that both parties fight on a level playing field (in the case of secret evidence); they are about protecting the people who are innocent, while giving the guilty a dashed good hiding. Of course, as a principle of English law, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but Our Norm has already declared himself above such petty fripperies: presumably he can tell, immediately and with perfect accuracy, who is as guilty as sin and who's innocent.

Truly, it must be marvellous, being Norman Tebbit. The only fly in his ointment, I am sure, must be all these judges who have their minds clouded by things like law, evidence, and jurisprudence.

Putting the Lord God to the test?

I've just done something which is dangerous for anyone with high blood pressure: I read below the line on a blogpost about religion. It's okay: my blood pressure is fairly low, a blessing inherited from my paternal grandfather. However, some people appear not to have such a benefit, as the thread at Lib Dem Voice demonstrates (link).

The story relates to the Advertising Standards Authority's decision that a Christian group cannot put up posters saying God answers prayer and heals people, on the basis that it is not a warranted claim. (The Lib Dem link is that Tim Farron, party president, is signatory to a letter criticising the ASA for its ruling.)

Predictably, the priestly caste of atheism are all over this one. Apparently, there are scientific studies which demonstrate that God doesn't do any such thing: you get people praying, or not praying, and the results are no better than placebo. However, this sounds like an extremely thin basis on which to found one's objections.

A fairly quick, if slightly irreverent, way to demonstrate the problem is a thought experiment: suppose you were the Almighty, and some puny human researcher wanted to do an experiment on you. How might you be inclined to react?

Precisely.

But I can really do no better than to quote C. S. Lewis:

Theology is, in a sense, an experimental science.

If you are a geologist studying rocks, you have to go and find the rocks. The will not come to you, and if you go to them they cannot run away. The initiative lies all on your side.

If you are a zoologist and want to take photos of wild animals in their native haunts. The wild animals will not come to you: but they can run away from you. There is beginning to be a tiny little trace of initiative on their side.

If you want to get to know a human person, but he is determined not to let you, you will not get to know him. In this case the initiative is divided.

When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on his side. If he does not show himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find him.
(Mere Christianity, p. 164, lightly edited)

This really does summarise the problem with running experiments on a person who, by hypothesis, is immaterial, omniscient and omnipotent: you can't bottle him or capture him, he knows what you're doing, and he can do what he pleases. 'Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test,' indeed: for even if you should, he may be unwilling to play along. What you need is God to reveal himself. Now, where might he have done that?