But of course they shouldn’t define it like that. A more reasonable definition would say that you can investigate it to your heart’s content. You can record it. You can measure it. You can do anything that you can do to a natural phenomenon. You’ll just never explain it–although you’ll never actually know it. It that practical sense it is indistinguishable from a natural phenomenon that has yet to succumb to explanation. Take Dark Matter. We need it to explain the motion of galaxies. We don’t know what it is. We haven’t seen it. If it is supernatural (which obviously I don’t expect) then we’ll never know what it is. If it is natural, we have hope. Whether it is supernatural or natural does not matter to me as a scientist–I have only the choice to assume it is natural and go for it.
EDITED: removed spurious fragment from beginning of post.
And it only took about 48 hours for you to explain it with enough clarity for me to grasp what I consider to be a very unusual stance for an Atheist to take!
Secondly, do you know any other Atheist that thinks God can be tested by Science? Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve been led to believe this is the usual position of Scientists about Science and the supernatural.
Thirdly, you are blaming Christians for this dilemma. But isn’t it a definitional problem? If Science investigates the “normal” - - the lawful conduct of natural law - - how can science grapple with the Miraculous?
In my experience, my position isn’t that unusual among atheists. Most of my ragtag group of co-nonbelievers would probably agree that physical manifestations of a deity would make them rethink their lack of belief in deities.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:711, topic:36256”]
Thirdly, you are blaming Christians for this dilemma. But isn’t it a definitional problem? If Science investigates the “normal” - - the lawful conduct of natural law - - how can science grapple with the Miraculous?
[/quote]
To use a previous example, if science only investigates the lawful conduct of natural law then it could not have studied the unlawful (according to Newton’s laws) precession of Mercury’s orbit. Scientists just observe and test. They don’t force their observations to fit natural laws. If miracles produce effects that can be empirically observed, they can be part of science.
Oh, I can well understand this position and inclination. But you are confusing this normal human reaction with Science.
A scientific investigation of the super-natural, the miraculous, the non-lawful natural, is not known to come up with anything reliable. How many good science discoveries have you heard about regarding ESP and the Paranormal?
You write:
“To use a previous example, if science only investigates the lawful conduct of natural law then it could not have studied the unlawful (according to Newton’s laws) precession of Mercury’s orbit.”
You seem to be confusing the “observation of non-lawful” behavior with the Science of non-lawful behavior.
Science is about uncovering the lawfulness of something … and until then, all Science has is a chaos of observations and “facts”.
Certainly Science noted that there was a Mercury.
Certainly Science noted that Mercury’s movement did not follow a known rule very well.
But this is not the completion of the Scientific endeavor.
Mercury’s orbit didn’t become “Good Science” until someone developed the correct hypothesis for what was affecting Mercury’s orbit.
So… if a man came to your town (wearing a badger suit) - - and he said he was God - - would you believe him?
If someone leaned towards you and whispered, I think he’s from Mars … how would you use science to determine whether he was a Martian or God?
I think the odds are … he would be from Mars… how would you ever prove him to be God?
That’s a very good example, and it probably weakens my argument a bit. Scientists are looking for natural explanation, but mainly because natural explanations are testable. There are even ongoing experiments trying to capture and measure individual dark matter particles. There are also theories flying around that gravity may not be the same throughout a galaxy, negating the need for dark matter. I am sure they are trying to find ways of testing that theory.
Do scientists reflexively look for natural explanations? Yes. However, there are good reasons for doing so. First, there has yet to be a verified scientific explanation that involves the supernatural. Two, natural explanations are testable. Three, scientists have been searching for natural explanations for 200 years, and it has proven to be a very, very fruitful line of investigation. Looking for natural explanations just works, which is why scientists do it. If someone fervently believes they have a really strong supernatural explanation that meets scientific criteria, then it is up to them to let the world know about it. Otherwise, scientists will continue to use the line of investigation that works.
Minus the badger suit, isn’t that what Jesus did?[quote=“gbrooks9, post:713, topic:36256”]
I think the odds are … he would be from Mars… how would you ever prove him to be God?
[/quote]
It is up to the person claiming to be God to provide the evidence.
I don’t know what a “supernatural explanation that meets scientific criteria” would even look like! I see no option other than using science to investigate anything we observe. If in the unlikely event it happens to be supernatural–well we are doomed to fail! Thems the breaks. But you are never allowed to let life (science) imitate art a la the famous Sydney Harris “then a miracle occurs” comic.
Neither do I, which is why I am skeptical of people who claim that science is excluding supernatural explanations. But more importantly, why do they insist that their beliefs be deemed scientific? Perhaps the first error is in seeking the approval of science for faith based beliefs.
Ah ha! Isn’t that pretty much what the point of this discussion is? Aren’t you really just trying to corner Theists into showing they aren’t wearing underwear?
Didn’t you just post: “Most of my ragtag group of co-nonbelievers would probably agree that physical manifestations of a deity would make them rethink their lack of belief in deities.”
And I thought all you need to see was “physical manifestations” … how could I have ever thought that an Atheist would need proof!? As “The Turk” political commentator YouTube & TV would say: “Of courrrrrssssssseeeeee Atheists would demand proof! Offfff courrrrrrrssssseeeee”
Mr. T, it is not “Theists” or “Christians” who especially advance the notion that Science is not equipped to handle the miraculous - - it is Scientists who make this assertion. And most at BioLogos agree with that assertion.
I am trying NOT to do that, although I might not be doing a good job of it. Like I have said in previous posts, I am not here to challenge faith based beliefs or belittle them. I don’t think it is a secret that many atheists like myself need more than faith, but I would rather characterize that as a difference between ourselves and instead focus on understanding each other a bit better.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:718, topic:36256”]
Mr. T, it is not “Theists” or “Christians” who especially advance the notion that Science is not equipped to handle the miraculous - - it is Scientists who make this assertion.
[/quote]
It is scientists who say that science is incapable of detecting the supernatural as it is defined by those who believe in the supernatural.
Are you asking or stating?
You are using “Detecting” in multiple senses of the word. Obviously, people have eyes. And if God does something, we can see the thing. But this is not the same thing as “Science comprehends God” or “Science comprehends the miraculous.” And I’m getting a little tired of beating the same dead horse with you.
You really really want that horse to get up and say thank you to you. I don’t think there’s any point to continuing to get it to do so.
Can Science prove when something is miraculous?
Can we prove how a miraculous event done?
If we prove a lawful event, that certainly doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been God behind it.
As a rule, Atheists don’t spend so much time trying to say that God can be proved. So I’m going to give someone else a chance to “wrestle the thang to the ground” with you.
Any takers? @T_aquaticus, you may have to choose your victim …
If the miraculous is defined as being undetectable by science beforehand? No.
The problem may be in how each of us approaches this question. I am coming from a position where miracles and the supernatural belong to someone else. I am letting them tell me what they are. I am on the outside looking in, and using the lens of what believers say to define what miracles and the supernatural are.
For you, miracles and the supernatural are part of your beliefs. You are on the inside looking out. For you, miracles and superstitions are part of you, not definitions or things to analyze.
This may be why our questions and answers aren’t quite meeting in the middle.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:720, topic:36256”]
Any takers? @T_aquaticus, you may have to choose your victim …
[/quote]
I will say that I enjoyed our conversation and am willing to be your victim in other threads.
No… I think your analysis of my interpretations miss the mark.
In college, my focus was on science … and especially on science in oppostion to creationism. 40 years ago … and today … asking Science to be able to yield useful “lawful hypotheses” about the miraculous seems to be an oxymoron.
I’m done with the topic. Let’s see if you can sell that potion to someone else.
You are beginning to catch on here. Theism is not an attempt to explain any natural phenomena – at least not in materialistic terms. Other than creationist fundamentalists, very few theists (very few, if any here, I would venture) offer up theism as a way to explain anything scientifically.
And you would almost certainly be wrong. Deadly wrong. I’m with @George on this one. If a titan appears, I’ll be hiding somewhere --a useless thing to do if the titan was somehow an “omniscient god”. Whether or not it had aspirations toward deity, it would very likely have nothing to do with the real creator God of Christianity unless perchance sent as an agent of judgment.
This view would be a relapse back into that caricature of Christianity that can only imagine a god as a most powerful, but still localized agent - a demi-urge. It tries to hearken back to Old Testament understandings and fails to even get there as it lands instead on narrow modern fundamentalistic attitudes merely imposed on the Old Testament.
But you are right that theology fails to give what it does not offer: scientific explanation. We already live in this house and have been living here for a while. And we welcome you in as a guest; after which you curiously proceed to inform your hosts where their house is as if they wouldn’t already know this. Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that we ought to be living elsewhere?
My understanding (for examples of healing) is doctors and specialists have made thorough examinations before and after such an event, and they pronounced the patient healed, without identifying a cause initiated by them. The explanation for this may or may not be faith based, but in relevant cases, the patient claims to have prayed for healing and believes her prayer was answered.
I have not indicated any other means to assess such events.
I suggest your understanding of faith may be different to mine. I would agree with this however; if anyone wishes to convince others of faith by performing parlour tricks, I would regard such as a fraud or worse. Faith is predicated on freedom and the uninhibited intellectual questioning.
I am unaware of a scientific method to assess miracles - if that is what you seek, This has nothing to do with challenging anyone’s belief, and miracles, as shown in the Gospels, are prone to cause all sorts of responses from people - nor are miracles meant to provide an alternate explanation, so I guess we end up with little in the way of science. I think the only person who would have a meaningful opinion would be the recipient of a miracle. The rest of us may talk and talk…
.
I would heartily agree. This is why I pointed out that it is a bit unfair to blame scientists for “not considering a creator” in their research.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:723, topic:36256”]
But you are right that theology fails to give what it does not offer: scientific explanation. We already live in this house and have been living here for a while. And we welcome you in as a guest; after which you curiously proceed to inform your hosts where their house is as if they wouldn’t already know this. Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that we ought to be living elsewhere?
[/quote]
This subthread, which has probably grown well beyond what it should have, started with this statement from Swamidass:
“Science does not consider supernatural (God-like) causes. This is very well established. It is often referred to as Methodological Naturalism, but has roots in theology.”
I was merely pointing out that science needs testable hypotheses, so it is the untestable nature of claimed supernatural events that keep them out of science. I think we seem to have agreement on that point, but if I am wrong then I will let you clarify and leave it at that.
The quote from Swadimass above flirts with just that:
“Science does not consider supernatural (God-like) causes. This is very well established. It is often referred to as Methodological Naturalism, but has roots in theology.”
Perhaps I am misunderstanding or projecting my own biases onto that quote, but that seems to be what it says.
