You don't need the scientists to tell you what is empirical evidence when it comes to religious claims.
While you could be deceived on evidence from a scientific research as you have no experience on that field, you can assess empirical evidence from religious claims.
A man says he cures HIV through Allah, by all means give the gentleman HIV clients to cure, make it about 200 clients to make a reasonable data set then get the statistical analysis done.
If he cures 195 patients which is 97.5% then surely he has a valid claim that his prayers are useful.
I will worship his god.
If he cures 150 which is 75%, I will worship his god.
100 = 50%; yes, that's a pass mark and I will worship his god.
75 = 37.5%, failure but I'll still worship his god.
50 = 25%, appalling but I'll still worship his god.
25 = 12.5%. I'll accept this.
10 = 5% is acceptable as long as it's from religion.
2 = 1%, anything at all is acceptable. Anything really.
Faith healers don't understand that all we need is empirical evidence even if they can cure 1% of any diseased population in a standard research setting with controls, that would go a long way in giving them credibility.
Now, in evidence based medical practice especially in diagnostics, some systems especially HIV antibody detection systems require upwards of 95% with systems like Alere Determine having sensitivity of 100% and 99% specificity.
You can't beat that with any homeopathic or religious means.
Don't ever belittle evidence based medical research in lieu of religious voodoo or faith healers, they have no credibility.
Written By Darren Idongesit