Cannot one person accept miracles, and another reject miracles, but align in the philosophy and practice of science?
3 Likes
I donāt think that definition of āsecularā covers very many scientists; in my experience most scientists ā even many atheists ā fall in the second category; since they have no Divinometer, they see no point in entertaining causes that cannot be detected or measured. This fits with what T said:
āAssumptionā? No, itās a demonstrated fact: every ānon evolutionistā website Iāve ever found engages in misrepresentation of data, ignoring data, making stuff up, and otherwise lying. On the major sites I donāt think Iāve ever seen an article that doesnāt do and rest on at least one of those things.
1 Like
And a poor Christian.
Which as I observed happens mostly because of being raised YEC.
A Foursquare pastor likened it to never let oneās kids near water then entering them in a triathlon: theyāre crippled from the start.
Works that way in linguistics, too; some new evidence can adjust the meaning set of a word or phrase just slightly, or reveal that a word had a slightly different root than thought, etc.
1 Like
Iāll take King Davidās, for $800.
2 Likes
For the vast majority of science, yes indeed, just like the vast majority of historical inquiries. But in those specific cases in both fields when the very question under consideration is, āIs this phenomenon a result of natural processes, or is the explanation in fact beyond explanation by natural causes?āā¦
Then those who accept the possibility of miracles and those who reject consideration of the supernatural will at that point be in two entirely separate categories, no?
Yes, but not so much with the observations and methodology of science as with the scope and applicability of science. I would agree that there are those who are antagonistic to any suggestion of metaphysics and conflate science with materialism, but that position really concerns the limits of science rather than any difference in practice. Put another way, the one accepting of miracles may also posit that because miracles are exceptions to natural law, science is not an suitable means of validation; whereas another who rejects miracles take the position that science is not suitable because nothing immaterial is real anyway. In both cases, the distinction is not in different kinds of science, but the larger worldview.
5 Likes
The questionaries that have been made here show that a fairly large proportion of young women classify themselves as āspiritual seekersā that have rejected the traditional teachings of churches (do not believe as traditional Christianity teaches). There appears to be a conflict between some teachings or practices of churches vs. the liberal, modern mindset of young women. With many young men, the tendency seems to be the opposite - the teachings and practices of traditional Christianity attract many young men. I do not think that it is predominantly misogyny because many of the men support equality between men and women.
I am not fully aware of the reasons for this conflict between young women vs. churches but have noted that many educated young females quite strongly demand that we should let āall flowers flowerā, not condemn or restrict people based on their beliefs or perceived gender or sexual habits. Conservative believers may be condemned, that seems to be an exception. They stress that love must be the guiding rule, interpreting the word āloveā as more or less unconditional acceptance. That is not as common among young men although there are also many men in the āpartyā that promotes this thinking within the Finnish Lutheran church. Within the Finnish Lutheran church, the majority of university-educated clergy tend to be more on the liberal than the conservative side while the active lay members within church administration include a higher proportion of conservatives.
I do not know how this difference in attitudes is reflected in attitudes towards science. For some reason, the majority of those spreading actively YEC teaching have been men but many women do share the interpretation and some women are quite strict in their demands for āliteral interpretationā of the scriptures. It seems that there is a (small?) minority among young women that strongly deviates from the majority of young women, perhaps also in their attitudes towards science.
2 Likes
Iām not a historian so I canāt say much about what Iād make of the expression āsecular history,ā other than that itās not a phrase I come across very much. Certainly I donāt think Iāve ever heard it used in the passive-aggressive or outright derogatory way that the expression āsecular scienceā gets used in some Christian circles.
Besides the snark factor, the other problem with the expression āsecular scienceā is that it tries to hold science accountable for discussions that are really the responsibility of philosophy or theology. The purpose of science is to investigate how things work in ways that are rigorous, systematic, disciplined, evidence-based, repeatable, and independent of your worldview. It is supposed to deliver findings that are the same for everyone, whether they are Christians or atheists, and whether they are open to supernatural agency or not. It is then up to the theologians and philosophers to take those findings and discuss their implications for such questions.
7 Likes
I really like that. And to riff off of it a bit more ā¦
Science asks us ā¦ āCan we at least agree that there is a reality we remain obliged to acknowledge - without printing out ideological free passes for ourselves to claim up is down and down is up, etc.ā
3 Likes
Science is possible because God created regular laws of nature and created us with the capacity to discover and understand those laws. There is no truly secular science, or indeed secular anything. Separating science out as a special category and claiming that it has top authority is an āEnlightenmentā myth that lies behind creation science and other efforts to claim that the Bible is talking about science (either to promote or attack the Bible). Thus, it is the young earthers who are being āsecularā. Truly biblical science follows the commandments, particularly about false witness.
4 Likes
This reminded me of a physics professor who said one day that if you observe something that science canāt explain you document it and write it up anyway ā that saying, āThis happened and I canāt make sense of it!ā is often just as useful as, āHey, this new phenomenon is weird but it seems to fit with theoryā.
1 Like
In principle, I follow and in general agree with your point here - and for the most part Iād completely agree that science strictly speaking and properly understood should follow the same principles and rules, etc.
In practice, however, I still would respectfully push back with respect to two angles:
Firstly, without getting too specific or political, there is certainly such a thing as political/religious/philosophical commitments genuinely having an impact on that larger process. I think it would be hard to deny that in recent times, there are many scientific studies that are essnetially forbidden or taboo due to various religious/philosophical/political commitments. As such, when someone is discussing any scientific study that has societal/religious/political ramifications, then the scientistās philosophical commitments are indeed quite relevant.
But secondly, in those specific cases where the very question at hand is as to whether natural forces are indeed sufficient to explain certain phenomena, the philosophical commitment of the sceintist is enormously relevant - Abiogensis is most interesting to me in this regardā¦
There is nothing wrong with the scientific exploration of any/all possible natural causes for the origin of life in the manner you describe above. But I simply have a problem with the philosophical/a priori removal of the possibility of Godās direct intervention from the table even before examining the data. If there were in fact evidences that would clearly point to direct/intelligent/divine design or intervention, I am simply skeptical of any scientific method that a priori removes certain conclusions from consideration.
I can believe that, but as we say in the world of computer programming, thatās a bug, not a feature. Itās not secular science; itās secularism (or other religious, political or philosophical aspects) getting in the way of science.
Again, thatās philosophy and theology, not science. Science can tell us what we do and do not know about abiogenesis. It can tell us what processes we know for a fact happened, it can tell us what the gaps in our knowledge are, and it can tell us what plausible steps could possibly have had a place in those gaps, but ultimately determining what to make of what we do and donāt know in that arena is the job of philosophers and theologians, not scientists.
In any case, thereās a problem. Letās suppose that you want to start investigating the possibility of supernatural agency as part of your scientific career. This being the case, what changes would you make to the scientific method in order to support such studies? Bear in mind that you have to do so without weakening the rigour and attention to detail that the scientific method demands, and that means preserving, for example:
- Technical rigour and quality control.
- Not making things up.
- Accounting for cognitive biases.
- Reproducibility by other researchers.
- Predictive power.
Herein lies the problem. Supernatural agency is by definition not reproducible by other researchers. To attempt to make it reproducible would be a violation of āDo not put the Lord your God to the test.ā But if youāre giving up reproducibility in order to try and accommodate your proposed miracles, youāve departed from the scientific methodāand for reasons that have nothing to do with āsecularismā or āmaterialism.ā
This isnāt science excluding miracles for worldview reasons. Itās just that we havenāt figured out how to study miracles and the supernatural with the same level of rigour that science demands.
7 Likes
All science can do is conclude āthis is how it probably happensā, or āwe do not know how it happensā. If we do not know, at that point divine design is not a redundant explanation, but neither can it be said to be scientifically demonstrated.
Science tests ideas about nature against limited observations, and then formulates generalizations from that data. When exceptions to those generalizations are encountered, that is a signal that the generalized theory is wrong or requires modification. But an unexplained exception does not rise to a positive indication of, well, anything, including divine intervention.
Another reason for the presumption of natural cause in science is the heuristic aspect. Once some unknown is regarded as Godās direct intervention, you are done. What is there left to investigate? There is no more need of your lab; your scientific services are no longer required, thank you. A search for a natural cause may or may not be futile, but it is certain that none be found if the presumption be that a natural cause does not exist. The practice of science of necessity requires the presumption of natural cause.
2 Likes
You are separaring scince from philosophy and even seem to be claiming a higher ground as if philosophy (and theology) has/have no merit or value. Hence, why scientist are viewed as eletistā¦
Richard
When you get a word wrong in the same way four times, itās clearly a spelling problem not a typing one.
While poor typing may be unavoidable, and its effect excusable, poor spelling can, and should, be improved upon.
For all you know I might be dyslexic.
Richard
Edit.
Also the spelling is often different UK & USA.
There is also a maxim. if you canāt say anything good, donāt say anything.
So would you say the brain is lesser than the eyes? If anything, I would think the temptation toward elitism might run the opposite direction even!
What topics are forbidden or taboo in science?
Some topics may be felt sensitive in the sense that there is a fear of harmful misunderstandings. In such cases, there is a demand for strong evidence. If you have the evidence and you write in ways that minimize misunderstandings, the study can be published in some journal despite the topic.
I remember one scientist describing how many journals had rejected his manuscript before it got published in one scientific journal. The manuscript showed that in certain conditions, rape can increase fitness. The paper studied vertebrates, not particularly humans, but many editors feared that the results might be misunderstood and misused in ways that would make rape among humans more acceptable. For that reason, the author had to present strong evidence for his case and modify writing in ways that would reduce the risk of misunderstanding. Yet, the topic itself was not forbidden or taboo among biologists and the manuscript was finally accepted and published.
It is good to remember that science itself is neutral regarding ethical values. Rape may increase fitness in certain conditions (a scientific result) but that does not tell anything about the ethical side of rape. There is a wide consensus that rape is ethically wrong. That is the conclusion of an ethical evaluation, not a scientific conclusion because science does not tell what is right or wrong.
3 Likes
Itās possible. That would be one possible unavoidable cause of persistent poor typing, and hence excusable. But it wouldnāt lead to consistent misspelling of a specific word.
Not in this case.
This looks like searching for excuses. Not caring enough about posts to make them as readable as possible leads to others not caring about them either.
A maxim applicable here.