Athanasius

So far, no one has addressed the problem I brought up: if life WAS actually designed by an intelligence independent of this natural realm, would not limiting science to methodological naturalism close our minds to ever scientifically admitting the possibility of it?

If science is completely synonymous with methodological naturalism, and the only "scientific" explanations can be naturalistic ones, then science is limited in it's ability to ask questions, and therefore limited in it's ability as a tool for discovering truth.

Isn't discovering the truth what science should be all about? When science is defined this way, we are left with no "scientific" choice other than metaphysical naturalism.

To me, that is akin to the Medieval Church forcing science to conform to metaphysical supernaturalism. Either way, the quest for truth is hindered. Science must be free to ask questions. (People should be, too!)

SciGirl, how this would be done is a difficult matter - one that I think would require much thought, collaboration and debate. A lot of that is going on right now, but it remains to be seen what will become of it!

Albion

Well, obviously it would. By definition. The notion of something supernatural is beyond the parameters of natural science; it's a matter for philosophy or theology. If practitioners of those disciplines want to use aspects of the scientific method, there's nothing stopping them.

Science doesn't say "there is no supernatural cause," it just looks at natural processes and leaves it to those other disciplines to decide whether the processes were put there by supernatural agents or not.

Yes, it's limited and deliberately so. The problem is that there's more than one definition of "truth." Science is looking for the most likely expanations of natural processes; in that way you could refer to them as the true explanations rather than the false ones. It isn't looking for Truth as in "why are we here" and "what's the ultimate purpose." Like I said, we have other areas of study for that.

See above. I think you're mixing the types of truth. Science in general is quite happy to stay within its limits, even if Richard Dawkins isn't.

Science is just sticking with what works. It's imposing its own limits for that very reason. Scientists aren't the ones wanting to extend the bounds of science to cover the supernatural; that seems to be the province of nonsicientists who are looking for ways to "prove" the existence of their particular flavour of God.

Edited for typos.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]</p>

Athanasius

[quote]The notion of something supernatural is beyond the parameters of natural science; it's a matter for philosophy or theology. If practitioners of those disciplines want to use aspects of the scientific method, there's nothing stopping them.[quote]

I really do appreciate your candid admission of these limitations, as well as the value you seem to attach to these other disciplines.

You mentioned that practitioners of these other disciplines are free to "use aspects of the scientific method." Likewise, is it possible or even desirable to exclude aspects of those disciplines from science?

There is, and in fact must be, an underlying philosophy of science behind the discipline. According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, "the intellectual enterprise of science originally formed an integral part of philosophy, and the two areas of inquiry have never finally separated." (V16,p357).

Even today, science ventures into the fringes of the metaphysical when we discuss theories of multiple dimensions, multiple universes, vacuum fluctuations etc.

My point is that this idea of limiting science to methodological naturalism is not as cut and dry as first impressions might lead one to believe. I think that there is room for change and improvement in the philosophies which undergird science. Those have been evolving and we know that they will continue to do so.

Devilnaut

We define all that we verify to exist as part of the "natural world".

How then, can something that actually exists, be "unnatural"?


Simple question at the heart of this issue, IMHO.


Like Scigirl said, how can we "unlimit our science" so that we can discover truths about the "supernatural"? The supernatural is defined as being 'non-physical', whatever that means. We need actual physical things in order to make any observations. There is no way to "observe" something that is not physical! And something that is not observable in any way, simply does not exist.

Put it this way: if we were to discover that there is an afterlife and that ghosts do indeed exist, this phenomenon would be moved from the realm of the "supernatural (not real)" to the realm of the "natural (actually existing)".

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Bubba

O.K., here goes-I am a thiest, believe in evolution, and think that naturalism is the best means for science to advance. Here is the way that I understand naturalism, and I think the definition and example should make things clear to Athanasius as well as be acceptable to the scientists on the board.

I am an electrician, not a scientist. The scientific method comes into play in my work. I've been sorting out the "demons" in the fire alarm system of a United Methodist church. How would I use the supernatural to solve the problems?? I couldn't. I need the naturalistic laws of science (amps, volts, resistance, voltage drop, etc.) to solve these problems. These things are demonstratable to everyone involved, I could bring Rufus of Scigirl or Oolon or Athanasius down to my jobsite, demonstrate why the fire alarm system is broken, and explain (using the naturalistic laws of science) what needs to be done to fix the bloody thing.

This doesn't mean that worship in the church is somehow inappropriate or that God doesn't exist, it just means that I use what I observe to come to a conclusion.

Instead of being an electrician, suppose I was a carpenter and a very religious one at that. I could be building an alter for the same church, deeply immersed in prayer, and yet still be using the naturalistic laws of science to build the alter. Oak will split easily if it is cut with a dull blade in a table saw, and the damn board will splinter the same way for Athanasius as it will for Scigirl as it will for Oolon or Santa Claus or whoever else tries to run the board through the saw with a dull blade.

Bring in science, however, and we can get a dandy carbide tiped blade that puts a perfect cut every time, even if Oolon is cutting the wood and he's never done woodwroking before. THAT is the power of science, observation, and paying detailed attention to the natural world.

Notice how the process runs backwords if we assume the Oak board splits because Hinduism is true and we're building the alter to the wrong God. Or because we aren't praying hard enough. Or maybe we feel bad becaus we've looked at pornography on the way into the woodshop and assume that God is spliting the wood because he's P.O.'d at us.

Notice how science doesn't negate any of the above propositions-God could be P.O.'d because we like Pamela Anderson Lee naked, or Hinduism could really still be true, or the situation may or may not be helped by praying. But none of these popositions can be forcefully advanced by looking at the natural world and framing testable hypothesis.

If God was upset about this proposition, all he or she would have to do is demonstrate himself /herself in some rational, testable manor and we could indeed have "creation science" because we could demonstrate a creator.

As it is, all of the "evidence" for God is indirect evidence, and not direct "evidence" at all. We could say, perhaps that a "creation" exists but that is really only evidence for the Cosmos, not evidence for whomever or whatever outside of the cosmos may or may not have created it.

Or we could say that the Bible or Quran or Vedas are evidence, but they are only an account of someone elses religious experience, and not direct evidence for God.

Going back to "some divine being creating the universe" we can't put that in a testable, falsifyable hypothesis, so it can't be science.

So I guess that I am saying that your question is really beyond science-because science deals with hard evidence. Which is why the creationists lost so badly back in 1981 in Arkansas. Probably the best thing I could suggest to you, Athanasius, is to get a copy of the case and read it.

I think you'll find Judge Overton was correct, and if you look at the evidence presented I think you'll have to agree that his decision was rational and correct.

Bubba

Devilnaut

I agree with most of your post bubba, except on a couple of points:


This seems to be obscuring the issue a little bit. First, are you suggesting that this "indirect evidence" is non-physical in nature? Wasn't "indirect evidence" actually direct evidence, to someone, somewhere? And if it was in fact 'physical', would this not place God squarely in the realm of other natural, observable phenomena?


I suppose I am still confused at how anything can not be a part of the natural world, yet somehow still exist. In what sense would it exist??


Edit to add an apology for veering off topic

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Bubba

If I were to be hanging a celing fan in your living room and I were to leave my tool belt on the living room floor, you could tell someone "those tools belong to the electrician..." but the tools could just as easily belong to a guy (or gal) putting in crown molding. Or a carpet layer...or...

You can't prove my existance by my tool belt. All you can say is that the tools exist, and that tools on your living room floor require an explanation. You can't verify that I am indeed in your home wiring something up without some other evidence.

My thinking is probably a little Muddy, but it is the best that I've come up with so far.

Bubba

Athanasius

Hi Devilnaut,

Great points. You wrote, "We define all that we verify to exist as part of the "natural world".
How then, can something that actually exists, be "unnatural"?"

That's why I often avoid using the word "supernatural." There is nothing outside of reality. The only question is, what is the scope of that reality?

You also wrote, "And something that is not observable in any way, simply does not exist."

I disagree with that one. We cannot observe what is beyond the boundaries of our universe, but that does not mean that something does not exist beyond, outside, or independently of it.

If there is a Deity who is actively involved in the affairs of our universe and created it, science, as many define her, can observe the evidence of this, but alas! she cannot ever acknowledge or even speculate as to His existence, or interpret her observations as evidence of His existence.

Devilnaut

Bubba,

It's true that I wouldn't be able to conclusively verify your existence on that evidence alone, but what sort of leap of logic could possibly justify me calling you supernatural??? Clearly, if you were able to place a belt of tools on my floor, you have at least some sort of physical component.


Well, I meant observable in principle, but I probably should have written that it makes no difference whether or not it exists, so we might as well treat whatever "it" is as not existing.

I don't see why not. If the evidence points to the existence of some sort of omnipotent super being, then that would become a perfectly viable theory. We would have no reason to call this deity "supernatural", however.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Starboy

Greetings Athanasius,

What you appear to looking for is a human endeavor that seeks to understand the natural in terms of the supernatural. As stated very well by others in this thread that would not be science. Have you thought of using religion?

Starboy