GeoTheo

It creates a cunundrum. If the Earth is a thing it can be measured and quantified with naturalistic methods, but if its origin is supernatural but totally seperate from that source, then there is no way to determine the source by naturalistic means. All attempts will fail to present an accurate picture. It is off the grid.
So, if the Universe has a supernatural origin making up a naturalistic one just because you you choose to use naturalistic tools to investigate, is doomed to failure and only assures you of coming up with a false conclusion.

GeoTheo

Well Starboy,
I'm glad we can agree on somthing, but unfortunately Science is the means many people use to arrive at the truth of things. I would guess many people who post here would say that.

Dr Rick

Yes, and yes.

If Gods are supernatural beings, then they are outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

The sciences are fields limited to natural phenomena. They cannot tell us about morals or gods just as the supernatural can tell us nothing about the natural universe. That is why Creation belief is not scientific, and evolution is not a religion

<strong> On the other hand, if the universe wasn't "created by a Supernatural being, then ignoring that possibility and seeking a [supernatural] explanation will not only miss the mark but will be incapable of producing a valid explanation."

So it comes down to a question of which method of inquiry do you prefer: the supernatural or science? Of course, that is to some degree a matter of opinion as no one can "prove" that faith in the supernatural is wrong, but consider this: history has shown that the former fails to allow us to manipulate and control the natural world, whereas the latter often succeeds. We didn't eliminate smallpox, fly to the moon, or build the internet through supernatural beliefs.

Can you name one major natural or technological advancement that came about through belief in the supernatural? The supernatural has not served humanity well through the ages, but science has. Because of that, I think it much more likely that belief in the supernatural will continue to "miss the mark."

Unfortunately, religion is the means many people use to thwart science and control others

Rick

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Skeptical

Two points:

1) It is agreed that no amount of naturalistic techniques can discover the supernatural as it is typically defined. One can only say "we don't have a naturalistic explanation". But even if one assumed a supernaturalistic explanation, one would have no more reason for believing one supernaturalistic explanation over another, it would only be a priori conceptions. i.e. one would have no more valid reason to appeal to a theistic god than to a deistic god (or to aliens and unicorns for that matter)

2) One does not "choose" naturalistic tools, those are the only reliable tools we have. By reliable I mean that they have consistency and they have shown to accurately reflect reality. i.e. if you perform a chemistry experiment 1,000 times, your going to get the same results 1,000 times.

You could argue that there are "supernatural" tools like meditation and praying, but there is no consistent methodology that produces replicatable results using such "tools".

The bottom line is that naturalistic explanations may fail to provide answers to all questions about the universe and some theories may be wrong. However, it is also unquestionably true that those are the only tools we have that can tell us anything with any reliability. Once you push beyond what can be known through naturalistic explanations, you push beyond what can be known _at all_. (we can discuss why internal experiences are not knowledge in the traditional sense of the term in another thread, but such a subject is considerably off topic so I won't get into it here)

GeoTheo

You keep trying to slip that strawman in there, that any type of belief in the supernatural logically causes one to seek only supernatural explanations for everything. That's just bogus.
I've already explained that it is part and parcel of the Christian worldview that the Universe is a thing, subject to physical laws.
A result of a belief in God would be altruism in seeking cures for disease. According to you the result can only be for a theist to throw his hands up in the air and say it was a demon some other supernatural cause and then do nothing.
As far as Christianity has played a big part in the development of western civilization, and western civilization has brought advances in Science, I believe shows a relationship of cause and effect.
If the Universe was believed to be an illusion and entirely supernatural than our scientific discoveries would have lagged behind as is the case with the East.
The whole idea that there should be order to the Universe, because it is a created thing is a Christian concept.

Dr Rick

On the contrary; you and other theists are trying to "slip" the supernatural into science with comments such as this:

<strong> Christianity teaches nothing of the sort: it teaches that all things are subject to a god's laws.

<strong> ...and then praying for a cure instead of finding one.

<strong> That's essentially what Christians did for about nine generations during the Dark Ages.

<strong> The fact that science advanced in the presence of religion says nothing about "cause and effect;" history, on the other hand, tells us that Christianity thwarted science and continues to do so to this day.

Rick

Skeptical

If you seriously believe that Christianity has not repeatedly impeded scientific progress, I can only say you _really_ need to brush up on your history. One of the primary reasons that the West was able to pull itself out of the cultural black hole created by religious dogma known as the dark ages was due to the "rediscovery" of greek and roman thought from the Arabs.

Almost every single scientific discovery in the past 500 years has either been implicitly hampered by appeals to superstition or has been explicitly crushed as with Galileo.

As far as the concept of an ordered universe due to a creator, if by "christian concept" you mean that christianity appropriated it, that may be true. If you mean it was invented by christianity, you are wrong. It is at least as old as Aristotle, and probably older.

BTW, there _are_ people who think that many diseases are cause by "demons" and that the proper way to cure them is through prayer. You may not have met them, but I have. They're called "Christian Scientists". They get some press from time to time when a child dies from a disease that is treatable with modern medicine but fails to respond to repeated prayers from the family. So perhaps that "christian worldview" is not nearly as unanimous as you seem to believe.

GeoTheo

Originally posted by that Doctor that likes to ride horses and Ski:
Christianity teaches nothing of the sort: it teaches that all things are subject to a god's laws.

Okeedokie,
And what would those laws be? The ten commandments? You must not have a clue as to what Christians believe. Either that or you deliberately mischaracterize them because you are unhappy with the ramifications of a world with more meaning to it than mere hedonism.

Skeptical

He is not mischaracterizing what _some_ Christians do in fact believe. It appears evident to me that you have not spent much time in the "bible belt" of the deep south. I have. You may never have dealt with truly fundamentalist individuals but I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do exist. Fortunately they are in the minority amoung Christians, but they do seem to often be the most vocal.

Also, please do not resort to ad hominem attacks, its pretty childish and your not very good at it. The old "you only want to deny god because you want to do drugs and fornicate" is sooooo tired. Many non-theists have moral world views, its a nonsense argument and is only resorted to by those with little knowledge. No dobut there are some non-theists who may fit the "hedonist" pattern, but its no more appropriate to use it as a label for all non-theists than it is to label all christians with the excesses of the fundy few.

scigirl

That's ok. You have to remember that this is a debate about your beliefs, not you personally.

If the answer to #1 is yes, then obviously, science is limited.

Problem is, what is God? God means so many different things to so many different people. Some people define Him as "the spirit that unites all life," some people think He is a literal being in the sky, etc, etc.

Most "fundamentalist" Christians have a view of God that is, in a way, testable. Except they don't believe the tests. They claim that He inspires us, but for those of us who haven't been inspired, they throw that data set out with "Oh, well you have to believe to be inspired." They claim that He wrote a book which is literally true, but it clearly isn't true. They throw out all the science that contradicts their bible (while conveniently using the rest). They claim He answers prayers, but when He fails to answer a specific prayer, again they throw out the data set and say, "Well He works in mysterious ways." If a scientist behaved in this fashion with their experiments, they would be called unethical.

So you appear to define God differently than above. If you fail to define him in a consistent and testable manner, than He can be neither proven nor disproven, and thus, yes, out of the realm of science (irrespective of whether He exists or not).

That is, except the origins of it, right? You don't need to invoke God to explain why you get mono, but you need to invoke him (or Satan perhaps) to explain where the Epstein-Barr virus came from? Please don't be mad - I am honestly trying to understand where you are coming from? Where exactly does God need to play a role, and where is his presense simply superfluous?

Sure. Let me ask you this: How exactly do you go about doing science so that we don't miss the mark then? How are we supposed to do what you are asking us to do?

scigirl