Why is God active in the world but we reject Intelligent Design?

[Mung (The Illustrious One)]

@klw

Let me know when you invent a divine-o-meter…and we’ll be having another conversation.

Sure. And you’ll let me know when you invent a not-divine-o-meter?

[Mung (The Illustrious One)]

@St.Roymond

It’s an admission that we can only study what we can detect and measure.

And how do we detect and measure whether something is “natural”? Or do we just assume that if we can detect and measure it, that it must be natural. Seems question-begging to me.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Mung

And how do we detect and measure whether something is “natural”? Or do we just assume that if we can detect and measure it, that it must be natural. Seems question-begging to me.

We don’t. If we can detect and measure it, we study it. You’re the one putting ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ labels on things. If the thing we detect follows a pattern, we can explain it. If it doesn’t, we can’t. So far, the number of things we’ve studied that have followed patterns has been very large and the number that haven’t is vanishingly small.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I think you make a common mistake that we see here frequently and recently, conflating the natural with the supernatural and metaphysical, the methodological with the philosophical, the scientific with the ontological.

These we can measure, not how they got there, their Author nor how he interacts with his creation:

This is what the LORD says: If I have not established my covenant with the day and the night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth…
Jeremiah 33:25

[klw]

Don’t need to because science already functions as it is meant to without one
Your statement demonstrates the problem of confusing methodological naturalism (science) with philosophical naturalism.

[Bill_II]

@Mung

Or do we just assume that if we can detect and measure it, that it must be natural.

In addition to detect and measure we have to be able to repeat the experiment and get the same measurement. No way to do that if God is involved. To measure God’s involvement we would have to find a way to force God to act in the manner which we expect.

[Vanengelen (Erik van Engelen)]

@glipsnort

If phenomena sometimes simply fail to follow the usual patterns (what might be called a miracle), then science lacks the tools to analyze them. All we can say in that case is that we have no scientific explanation.

I completely agree.
But what is the next step then? And why?

[Vanengelen (Erik van Engelen)]

@Christy

It’s called methodological naturalism and it’s the basis of the scientific method.

To my knowledge methodological naturalism is invented by Paul de Vries in 1986.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Vanengelen

To my knowledge methodological naturalism is invented by Paul de Vries in 1986.

• Googling to check your statemen, I found a citation for it: On the Origins of Methodological Naturalism By Nick Matzke March 20, 2006 21:54 MST

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Vanengelen

I completely agree.
But what is the next step then? And why?

I’m not sure what you’re asking. The next step in what?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Christy

Disease or sickness is one metaphor for sin in the Bible

But people seem to take this metaphor beyond where it should be. It is one thing for sin to be endemic, it is another to suggest that it is being passed from one person to another. They are different characteristics. Yes, sin is rife, bit it is on an individual basis not passing from one to another or inherited.

@Christy

It can refer to specific acts of disobedience, but also propensity to rebel,

We have to be able to distinguish between propensity and transmission. Being vulnerable to something means you might suffer from it but, vulnerability does not spread it to others.

Metaphors are not as straight forward to use as some people might think.

Richard

[Vanengelen (Erik van Engelen)]

I’m umclear.
When we come to the case that we have no scientific explanation.
For instance: finetuning of the universe.
What is our (meta) physical reaction about that?

1. It’s impossible, there must be a scientific explanation?
2. This is Gods finger?
3. At this moment, we have no clue, but with advance of science, we will find it?
4. May be, this is Gods handiwork, however, we are not sure?
   5)…

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

Take your pick. Any of them is outside the scope of science, which was the subject I was addressing.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@RichardG

But people seem to take this metaphor beyond where it should be.

Yes, all metaphors have some points of similarity in view and not others. Sin is not like a disease in every possible way.

@RichardG

Metaphors are not as straight forward to use as some people might think.

Agree. But they are foundational to human cognition.

[Vanengelen (Erik van Engelen)]

That’s true.
Would ID be acceptable, if it assumed that there is a natural intelligent agent that created biological complexity?

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Mung

I don’t see much difference between being a-theist and anti-theist

I don’t see much difference between that and being a religious bigot.

@Mung

For those who are neither a-theist nor anti-theist there is a category, agnostic.

Not quite on the same spectrum. Being agnostic is about what is knowable. So one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. I am strongly theist but I don’t believe objective knowledge of God is possible.

@Mung

So why not methodological agnosticism?

no reason. I think it is quite common especially in academia where methodological naturalism wouldn’t apply. It is a reasonable approach to things in a multi-cultural multi-religious environment.

@Mung

Science cannot measure and study natural causes either. There is nothing in the scientific toolkit that allows the scientist to distinguish natural causes from supernatural causes.

That is nonsensical. The point is that God and a supernatural nature of anything is simply not measurable. And thus hypotheses on such things are unfalsifiable and thus completely useless in the work of science.

@Mung

I honestly don’t understand why this is so difficult for people to grasp.

Your failure to understand science is quite clear.

@Mung

So if someone claims to be only able to study natural causes, that’s pure hogwash and question-begging.

No it is claims to be able to objectively measure, manipulate, and control God and supernatural causes which is pure hogwash. This nonsense you are blathering is typical of the completely empty rhetoric of those indulging in pseudoscience.

@Vanengelen

Would ID be acceptable, if it assumed that there is a natural intelligent agent that created biological complexity?

Acceptable scientific hypotheses are those which are testable. What test of a natural intelligent agent are you proposing? In science this consists of a written procedure which gives the same result no matter what you may want or believe.

@Vanengelen

What is our (meta) physical reaction about that?

philosophy not science

@Vanengelen

But what is the next step then? And why?

Depends on whether we are talking science, philosophy, or theology.

In the case of science there is no next step. Science restricts itself to the measurable patterns.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Vanengelen

Would ID be acceptable, if it assumed that there is a natural intelligent agent that created biological complexity?

It would pretty much have to be a non-carbon based alien lifeform. When we find one or see interactions with one, we can test scientifically. (Or humbly ask it questions. )

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Vanengelen

natural intelligent agent

It’s not really about whether the intelligent agent is natural or not, it’s about whether we have access to it to study it. All of ID assumes we can recognize “intelligence” as if it’s this abstract thing, not something necessarily embodied by someones with whom we have experience. All they are doing is saying “I see something that reminds me of what I see embodied in humans.” The rest is extrapolation. We can study human intelligence because it is present with us and we have many many examples of what it looks like. We can’t study alien intelligence or divine intelligence because we don’t have it with us, embodied in our natural world. All we can do is make analogies to our own embodied experience. These analogies might be interesting and lead to good discussions of theoretical possibilities, but it isn’t science, which is based on making observations of things we can directly experience. To theorize about natural intelligent agents that created life we need lots of experience with this natural intelligent agent to which we can compare our observations about the creation of life and look for patterns that cohere with what we know. But we don’t have this experience (say, with God or with aliens) in the scientific realm, so we can’t establish those patterns.

[Vanengelen (Erik van Engelen)]

@mitchellmckain

Acceptable scientific hypotheses are those which are testable. What test of a natural intelligent agent are you proposing?

I would propose a same approach as to test non-intelligent natural agents that were supposed to create biological complexity. I choose some intelligent natural items called scientists and they are allowed to construct a brand new bacteriological structure. If human intelligence can fix the job, may be there is another intellgence that works the same way.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

We know that information, even complex information, can be generated without intelligence. Consider the shadow of a cloud, for instance. Neutral drift and the neutral theory of evolution can too.