Tercel

I was already aware of that bit, it was the 40% vs 5% thing I was interested in getting some stats for.

I shall look into it.

Ha, ha. Methodological naturalism by definition cannot recognise miracles. So trivially, there are no such things. However there are many events recognised as inexplicable to science which is as far as methodological naturalism can go towards saying "miracle".
The most prominant body for the medical analysis of such unusual events is the Lourdes International Medical Committee based in Lourdes, France. An independent body, originally set up by the Catholic Church for the investigation of miracle claims, the Committe is made up of thirty specialists, surgeons, professors or Heads of Department‚ from different countries and includes those who accept the possibility of miracles as well as those who reject the possibility.
It is the Committee's job to investigate miracle claims (which have already passed a lower-level bureau's examination by the time they get to the Committee) and declare (or not) the cures as "certain, definitive and medically inexplicable".
It is then up to the Church to declare the cure as a miraculous sign from God or not as it wishes.
You can read some more about it on the <a href="http://www.lourdes-france.org/gb/gbsa0010.htm" target="_blank">Lourdes Web Site</a> (The text on the left hand side of the screen is a menu)
If you want to discuss it then I suggest you start a new thread.

My first and foremost problem with that is that this would only be valid reasoning if methodological naturalism somehow conflicted with each and every type of supernatural belief. And it seems to me that methodological naturalism fits absolutely perfectly well with Christianity as I know it, indeed I would say it's implied by it...

They are, to me, completely different concepts and Metaphysical naturalists taking Methodological naturalism as a foundation of their world-view seems a bit like saying that "Mathematicians take History as the foundation of their worldview". Mathematicians might happen to like History, but it's not "foundation of their worldview" stuff, it's simply unrelated.
Anyway, we're arguing this backwards: there's no way I can prove absolutely this negative assertion, but if you give me a positive argument as to the relation between the two views then I'll pick as many holes in it as you like.


Secondly, it's the success and degree of success of methodological naturalism that I think comes the closest to being contradictory with metaphysical naturalism. It's not a logical contradiction, but rather a probabilistic one: Why is the universe and natural phenomina understandable, consistent, intelligable, and explainable using our human reasoning to the degree that they are?

MadMordigan

Why is the universe and natural phenomina understandable, consistent, intelligable, and explainable using our human reasoning to the degree that they are?

Its very simple really, once you discard dualism. Human reasoning is a result of a naturalistic universe. It only makes sense that it would be compatible with recognizing the patterns of that universe.

Gurdur

Ah, we have sarcasm here. A pity your theories are too weak to bear the strain, otherwise this might be fun.

Think, man !

If no explanations as hypotheses other than purely naturalist ones are posited in normal everyday life - owing to the complete paucity of supernatural explanations working out in the past - then it's an implicit acceptance of metaphysical naturalism.
Or is this somehow too difficult for you ?

Care to back up your claim I've misquoted myself ?
Also, couldn't you at least also do some thinking along with the not-terribly-brilliant sarcasm ?

ROFL ! It is claimed that 'miracles' are the direct result of intervention by one particular version of a Christian God.
Nothing has been found to substantiate such claims. See remarks further on.

This is awfully feeble. Do you actually know what natural remission is ? How would you seperate the appearence of natural remission from a 'miracle' in an appropriate case ?
Or are you referring to 'miracles' which would by definition have nothing to do with natural remission, such as growing back an amputated leg ?

As for the rest of my response, see Bill Snedden's above.

BTW, no evidence means no substantiated evidence - evidence must de facto be substantiated to be immediately pressing. Or is this too complex?

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

HRG

But at the same time it makes clear that we are only able to tell that something "miraculous" might have happened - but never exactly which miracle. In fact, in the presence of miraculous events, the connection between observation and reality begins to dissolve, as it were.

Of course, we are still waiting for an observation which requires a miraculous explanation.

Regards,
HRG.

hezekiah jones

Well, there is the e. coli flagellum, for one. Those are the sorts of things God has been reduced to creating these days.

jj

Err, what's miraculous about Flagella and such?

The chemistry is getting to be well understood, and how they come about as collections of proteins that exist before them isn't that obscure.

hezekiah jones

Beats me. But they're at the core of Michael Behe's, William Dembski's (and presumably the aforementioned Robert Koons') arguments for "intelligent design." (Shhh ... don't name the "designer.")

jj

Gotcha!

I guess that he hasn't read "5 Kingdoms" by Margulis, et al, or that he thinks that the book is a fantasy novel?

Tercel

Why does that not suprise me?

I similarly find nothing of merit in your response.

Have a nice day,
Tercel

Tercel

1. "owing to the complete paucity of supernatural explanations working out in the past" is an amusing spin on things.
2. You haven't explained anything at all here. You've given what is almost the definition of methodological naturalism "no explanations as hypotheses other than purely naturalist ones are posited in normal everyday life" and stated that it accepting this is "an implicit acceptance of metaphysical naturalism". I want a proof for that assertion. (since I don't believe it's a true one) Remaking the assertion doesn't help your case.
3 I'm a counter-example to your assertion.

Apparently it's difficult for you to understand the difference between an explanation and an assertion.

Calling it "natural remission" would seem a bit of a misnomer - you can't actually prove that it is natural for any given case, after all...

I'm not a qualified medical authority so I wouldn't. I'm happy to leave it to the specialists to differenciate between a "possibly natural remission" and "inexplicable".

Well, they're all good too, but I wasn't thinking of that sort of thing specifically.

Don't be stupid. I fail to see how any amount of spin can turn the thoroughly analysed cases at Lourdes into "no substantiated evidence". As far as I am concerned investigation by specialist scientists through a rigourous process <strong>substantiates</strong> evidence regardless of whether one actually agrees with, or accepts, their conclusions.