scigirl

AthanasiusContraMundum,

I like your questions, and I have thought about these things before - especially when I was a Christian.
We cannot observe yet. What if a physicist discovered some way to observe outside of the boundary of the universe? Does that mean there is "unnatural" things outside of the universe, or did we just have the "universe" poorly designed in the first place?

Ghosts for example - they may be "outside of science," but all of the effects of believing in ghosts - vision, hearing, thinking - these things are within the realm of scientific inquiry. So I would say - no, ghosts are NOT outside science, we just don't know the right experiments to do yet to prove or disprove their existence.

And scientific inquiry tells us - most ghost stories have a more likely, more boring, and natural explanation.
Why not, if this Deity is really real, and doing real and active things?

scigirl

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

Starboy

Hi Scigirl,

Perhaps I am putting words into the mouth of Athanasius, but I don’t think he was postulating a being that is unknown to science but one that is definitely outside of nature. What he is saying is that if nature were left to its own devices the universe, as we know it would not exist. Only because of the intervention of this being does the universe exist, as we know it. As stated this would always make this being outside of nature. And as explained elsewhere on this thread, automatically makes it unscientific.

Starboy

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

tgamble

As far as science is concerned, there's no difference.

But that's been done. The most reasonable explanation is evolution.

There's a serious difference between forensics and supernatural explanations.

Daggah

Fine. Now, when you figure out the methodology to use to verify/test the so-called "supernatural," then go ahead and propose that that methodology be used in scientific research.

Oh wait, there *IS* no way to verify/test the so-called "supernatural." If we don't have a way to tell if it's true or not, then it isn't and can't be science.

Lizard

Athanasia wrote:
Me:
ID promoters keep saying there is a way to test ID, but I've never heard one proposed. ID has been around for centuries, and still no testable hypothesis. Still no definition of ID. Still no "scientific research program." ID is only criticism of evolutionary theory. It has no theory of its own.

I am keen to know in concrete terms how one would do any kind of research at all outside the *restrictive* bounds of methodological naturalism. MN is not the belief that nothing besides the physical exists; it's a method based on observation. As someone else said, it's impossible to observe, test, and measure anything non-physical.

Starboy

Athanasius,

In my opinion you have two issues you need to resolve.

Your attempts to state ID as a scientific theory and as a search for the truth are intellectually dishonest. Let us say for the sake of argument that science could be used to “prove” the designer but it was discovered that the designer did not create the universe for the benefit of man but for bacteria. Would you accept that and then abandon any religious faith that you might hold, or would you do what historically has been done in the past with scientific evidence that conflicted with religious beliefs. Declare it false then suppress it and persecute the scientists involved. Do you really have the moral courage to peer into your intellectual soul and answer the question honestly? Or are you so convinced of the outcome that you have never given it a moment’s thought?

If you are looking for confirmation of your beliefs by using science, I think you need to search for the basis of your religion. You are under the mistaken idea that science is about the truth. That it can answer questions with certainty. That may have been true in your college science classes but that is not how it is in the real world. All scientific theories and experimental results are open to differing interpretations, experimental error, observation bias, and just plain deception. To top that off, there are very few experiments that are not based on the results of previous experiments so the problems could very well compound. It is very hard to do good science and as certain as the outcome appears to be there is always some other scientists that can make a good argument to the contrary. Is this the sort of thing that you would feel comfortable with as the basis of your religion? Perhaps you do not realize that if you go down this road, you will be left with no religion at all?

Maybe I am being too harsh on you and you have not really thought through the ramifications of what you propose? Or maybe your have, either way I would be interested in your response.

Starboy

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

Athanasius

Lizard wrote: Not so, although this is an oft-repeated argument. To begin with, ID can fit perfectly well within methodological naturalism. We can hypothesize that a complex, highly ordered system has been designed and created by an intelligence; we can then look for observable evidence of this. We can even "test" the idea by calculating the probabilites of structures within the system arising by chance, or observing them occurring (or not occurring) in nature. Such an intelligence need not be supernatural. If someone hypothesizes that it is supernatural, however, then he is more likely to be accused of being non-scientific.

I think that the following statement by Arthur Strahler in Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy well summarizes this mindset:

His statement that "if science must include a supernatural realm, it will be forced into a game where there are no rules" is not neccesarily true. Merely acknowledging the possibility of the supernatural would not result in this.

Lizard wrote, Yes, but we can observe, test and measure the effects of something non-physical.

To my lament that if a Deity exists, science, as many define her, "cannot ever acknowledge or even speculate as to His existence, or interpret her observations as evidence of His existence," scigirl asked, That sounds to me like a very reasonable question to ask.

Athanasius

I am not at all suggesting divorcing science from methodological naturalism. Our methods of scientific observation and testing must, and should, always remain naturalistic and methodological. I am just saying that when naturalistic explanations are highly improbable, we should be open to considering the possibility of supernatural causes. If by definition, science cannot ask such questions or even consider such a hypothesis, then she WILL miss the mark if there actually is a supernatural intelligent designer. Why take that chance?

This kind of scientific inquiry would have it's limits as to what it could reveal to us. For instance,

I doubt that science could ever discover an Intelligent Designer's motives. Only the Intelligent Designer himself could reveal that kind of information. That kind of inquiry would be classified under the discipline of Theology rather than science.

DMB

But you must acknowledge that there are big difficulties in assigning probabilities to a lot of things that are on the borders of our knowledge. See, for example, the arguments over the probability of extraterrestrial intelligent life. It may well take many decades or even centuries before that question is resolved.

The history of science shows a progression from the supernatural hypothesis being the overwhelming favourite to the rather less impressive "god of the gaps". Laplace didn't need the hypothesis for his Celestial Mechanics. But he was not a biologist and he was working long before Darwin published his Origin. That, when it came, filled a lot of previously yawning gaps.

Unless you think that science has almost finished its job, there will always be some gaps in what we currently know or can explain. We are free to use our imaginations to fill the gaps with intelligent designers, IPUs, multiverses, or anything we please. But how do these speculations add anything to scientific progress?

ID is the refuge of intelligent gappers. Unless and until it is testable, it adds nothing to science. We do not at present know why certain physical constants have the values that make our universe possible. But that lack of knowledge means that we are also unable to assign reliable probabilities to their having the values that they do. Saying that the most likely explanation is that they are fine-tuned by a god or gods is IMO like saying that the best explanation for thunder is that Zeus is hurling his bolts or Thor is bashing his hammer. It also implies that we should not be seeking an explanation that exists only in the mind of god. We don't know at this time whether a naturalistic explanation will ever be found, but the history of science encourages us to seek one.

HRG

The same is true for the hypothesis that the universe was created by my cat last Thursday. If it was actually true, science could not discover it as well.

Do you therefore accuse methodological naturalism of closing our minds against scientifically admitting the possibility of Last Thursdayism ?

I guess you don't. But the hypothesis of an unspecified and unlimited designer, acting out of unspecified motivations is as testable as Last Thursdayism - i.e. not at all.
True. Science cannot answer either whether Last Thursdayism is true, or Thor actually causes lightning by swinging his mighty - invisible - hammer. Do you see this as a big disadvantage ?
Science is concerned with testable explanations. Whether there exists such a thing as "truth" outside mathematics and other formal systems can be left to philosophers.
True - but giving answers is extremely easy; even my cat can do it. Giving testable answers is hard. I submit it is quite reasonable that a discipline restricts itself to giving testable answers - which directly leads to methodological naturalism.

Regards,
HRG.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: HRG ]</p>