|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, today there could be evidence of healing miracles.
Bible believers know what a prophecy is and have said so for millennia. Now we have unbelieving "scholars" coming along saying the believers are wrong because the scholars don't understand how Bible prophecy works, and besides they actually distort facts such as dates to "prove" their claims. Still true: I believe the Bible witnesses, many people here don't. That's all this is about in the end. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It’s not the scholars distorting dates. I guess it must be upsetting for you Bible believers to be told you’re wrong about the Bible. But if you react badly to it and reject the Bible as it actually is, that is really your problem.
quote: Even when the Bible witnesses aren’t actual witnesses. But you cannot reasonably condemn people for disagreeing with your opinion when you have such weak evidence. Getting angry at people for not sharing your biases is hardly productive - or even sensible. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Two thousand years of Bible exegesis by believers trumps a couple hundred by debunkers. And opinion is all you've got anyway, opinion about what the Bible really says etc. I hope you'll forgive us traditionalists if our opinion differs. And what a spin artist you are. I'm not angry or condemning anyone, just saying they are arrogantly wrong. But keep your opinion and I'll keep mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Two thousand years of cumulative misinterpretation based on false assumptions doesn’t beat real scholarship. And that is what we are talking about.
quote: You can have your ill-founded opinions. Just don’t get upset when people disagree - or try to make out it’s their fault.
quote: And thus you prove me right. Preferring evidence and reason over your beliefs is hardly being arrogant - and rather less likely to be wrong than you are. [ABE] and let me remind you of the fact that the Bible really isn’t good evidence Message 1171. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
If you define miracles as "a violation of the laws of nature", then as far as science is concerned they can't exist because science works only within the laws of nature (sometimes amending those laws as necessary). Hume is arguing that past experience is proof that miracles can't exist. But as far as believers are concerned, they do exist. That fact has to be included in the definition.
Percy writes:
"Something we can't currently explain."
Maybe they'd call it a miracle, maybe something else, but surely they'd call it something much shorter than "inexplicable phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws." Percy writes:
I'm imagining that the authors intent was to say that the scientists, after much effort, had given up.
Are you imagining that the comic's author did anything more than make stuff up or copy stuff out of a math book? Percy writes:
Of course not. Just the opposite. It implies that the scientists, after much effort, had given up.
And concerning the miracle step, which is what I actually asked about, do you really think the comic implies a lot of effort was placed into "Then a miracle occurs"? Percy writes:
Scientists haven't encountered it before because they don't recognize that it can happen. If something appears to "violate" known natural or scientific laws, they conclude that either the appearance is deceptive or the laws need to be tweaked.
But you're leaving out the violation of known natural or scientific laws, something scientists haven't encountered before. Percy writes:
I don't think it has any relevance. Everything is unprecedented until it happens. Scientists deal with unprecedented observations every day.
Is the word "unprecedented" really so difficult for you to understand? Percy writes:
Do you need to be reminded of the Miracle of the Sun? It's only a miracle because it's attributed to unnatural causes.
Do you need to be reminded of the two-slit experiment and quantum entanglement and radioactive decay and so forth? Percy writes:
We have no reason to think scientists would change their MO.
Up until now that is true. But what if tomorrow that changed? Percy writes:
Again, you're the one who is making the claim that pigs would suddenly change their behaviour if confronted by a new kind of mud. You need to back up that claim. Because your pigs react to the new type of mud as if nothing about it was different from the old type of mud. Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
The definition defines away the argument. Hume is just doing what ringo is doing - defining away the argument.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Modulous writes: Have you recently changed your mind on this? No, I haven't changed my mind about the impossibility of miracles - the messages you quoted are from a different thread, The Tension of Faith over in the Faith and Belief forum. This thread's in the Is It Science? forum, and we're considering the question, "But what if a scientifically verifiable miracle *did* occur?" --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
If you define miracles as "a violation of the laws of nature", then as far as science is concerned they can't exist... Hume is arguing that past experience is proof that miracles can't exist. But if the evidence exists then neither can science ignore it. Oh, what to do, what to do?
...because science works only within the laws of nature (sometimes amending those laws as necessary). Science pretty much works on anything that leaves evidence behind.
But as far as believers are concerned, they [miracles] do exist. That fact has to be included in the definition. Why do you think religion should have a say in a scientific definition?
Percy writes:
I'm imagining that the authors intent was to say that the scientists, after much effort, had given up. Are you imagining that the comic's author did anything more than make stuff up or copy stuff out of a math book? I don't think everyone shares your view on intent. Plus it would be incorrect to say the scientists had given up, since obviously one scientist wrote the equations and the other scientist is commenting. Also, that the scientist who wrote the equations had given up is just one interpretation. Even what is funny is open to interpretation. Is it funny because the scientist made such an absurd error? Is it funny because of the understated way the other scientist calls attention to the error? Is it funny because of the incongruous insertion of a miraculous event into science? All of these? Some of these? Something else? One thing we can be sure of, opinions will vary. But that's all beside the key point, which is that scientists would work hard to study and understand the phenomena. They wouldn't just "insert miracle here."
Percy writes:
Scientists haven't encountered it before because they don't recognize that it can happen. But you're leaving out the violation of known natural or scientific laws, something scientists haven't encountered before. Known natural or scientific laws have been violated many times in the history of science, just not as flagrantly as in the scenarios that have been suggested.
If something appears to "violate" known natural or scientific laws, they conclude that either the appearance is deceptive or the laws need to be tweaked. I think scientists would most certainly explore the possibilities you mention, that what happened wasn't as it seemed (deceptive) or that theory must change, but what if neither of these possibilities (nor any others) pan out?
Percy writes:
I don't think it has any relevance. Is the word "unprecedented" really so difficult for you to understand? It can't help but have relevance. When in the history of science have known natural or scientific laws been violated as flagrantly as in the proposed scenarios? The answer is "never," hence the term "unprecedented."
Everything is unprecedented until it happens. More repetition. Again, you mean "every phenomena," not "everything," and you're missing the point. It isn't that the phenomena of the proposed scenarios are unprecedented in the sense that they haven't been observed before.They haven't been observed before, that's true, but that isn't what I meant when I labeled them unprecedented. It's that they're unprecedented in that they totally violate known natural or scientific laws. Scientists deal with unprecedented observations every day. That violate known natural or scientific laws? I don't think so.
Percy writes:
Do you need to be reminded of the Miracle of the Sun? Do you need to be reminded of the two-slit experiment and quantum entanglement and radioactive decay and so forth? And here you are again with yet another loop back to a failed religious argument. Plus you're ignoring the point, which was about attribution. Attribution is not a necessary quality of scientific phenomena. That's why I asked if you needed reminding about the two-slit experiment and quantum entanglement and radioactive decay and so forth?
It's only a miracle because it's attributed to unnatural causes. I think religion might prefer the term "supernatural" to "unnatural," but other than that yes, I agree, religion attributes miracles to the supernatural. But getting back to science, anything that leaves scientifically analyzable evidence behind can be studied by science.
Percy writes:
We have no reason to think scientists would change their MO. Up until now that is true. But what if tomorrow that changed? Right. And their MO is to follow the evidence where it leads.
Percy writes:
Again, you're the one who is making the claim that pigs would suddenly change their behaviour if confronted by a new kind of mud. You need to back up that claim. Because your pigs react to the new type of mud as if nothing about it was different from the old type of mud. I saw no point in arguing with you about what types of mud pigs wallow in, so I said that if pigs actually do wallow in all types of mud, including any new type of mud, that just makes your analogy worse. You asked, "How so?" and I responded that it was because your pigs react to the new type of mud as if nothing about it was different from the old type of mud. An accurate analogy to the proposed scenarios in this thread would be if pigs were presented something different to wallow in. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
ringo writes: Tangle writes:
The definition defines away the argument. Hume is just doing what ringo is doing - defining away the argument. Yes, Tangle just said that. More clearly, you and Hume are crafting your definition of miracle as something that can't exist. But the flaw in Hume's definition is obvious and of the first order: science is tentative and doesn't offer proofs. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No, I haven't changed my mind about the impossibility of miracles I was mostly concerned with your state of mind regarding tentativity. You said in this thread:
quote: You took the 'Humean' position in the other thread, and I retorted tentativity back to you. It certainly seems like an entirely contrary position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Religion and science are two different contexts. In the context of the religious question, "Could any of the miracles claimed by religion be real?" tentativity, a scientific concept, is out of place. In the context of the scientific question, "What would mean to science if faced with inexplicable violations of natural or scientific law?" tentativity is perfectly at home.
Your response should be, "But you said you thought some things were impossible," and I still believe that for religious claims and other things made up. I quoted a brief version of Hume's position on miracles where he uses the word "proof," and in science nothing is ever proven because science is tentative, but the flim-flam of religion can make no claims on the graces of science. Religion has no scientific evidence or process, and so its myths can claim no benefit from scientific concepts like tentativity. That there was a global flood 4500 years ago that wiped out all life not on a certain boat is just a religious myth (did you ever wonder why no fishermen survived the flood?), not science and not something tentativity rescues as possible. Same for thunder and lightening representing the anger of the gods. Well, I'm being called to dinner, this is as well thought out as it's going to get tonight. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
It isn't a scientific definition. Why should science define a word that it doesn't use?
Why do you think religion should have a say in a scientific definition? Percy writes:
The cartoon is making fun of people like creationists who use Goddidit as a "reason".
Is it funny because the scientist made such an absurd error? Is it funny because of the understated way the other scientist calls attention to the error? Is it funny because of the incongruous insertion of a miraculous event into science? Percy writes:
Exactly, which is why scientists wouldn't change their MO, no matter how flagrant the "violation".
Known natural or scientific laws have been violated many times in the history of science.... Percy writes:
You keep asking the same question.
but what if neither of these possibilities (nor any others) pan out?quote:No matter how many times you ask, the scientific method doesn't change. It's still a closed loop, with no escape hatch if the questions get too hard. Percy writes:
The level of flagrancy is irrelevant. There's no such thing in science as a "violation". There's only insufficient understanding.
When in the history of science have known natural or scientific laws been violated as flagrantly as in the proposed scenarios? Percy writes:
But it is a necessary part of the definition of miracles. That's why miracles are not science.
Attribution is not a necessary quality of scientific phenomena. Percy writes:
I used the word "unnatural" specifically because it is broader than "supernatural". Any event that is attributed to causes which can not be explained (by the attributor) is called a miracle, whether it can be explained by somebody else or not.
I think religion might prefer the term "supernatural" to "unnatural...." Percy writes:
That's the analogy I used. To a pig, mud is mud. What kind of analysis do you expect them to do? An accurate analogy to the proposed scenarios in this thread would be if pigs were presented something different to wallow in.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
I'm not crafting anything. I'm using the definition as written - the definition that you quoted yourself. As far as science is concerned, a violation of natural laws can't exist. An event is only attributed to a "violation" of natural laws by people who believe they can. More clearly, you and Hume are crafting your definition of miracle as something that can't exist.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Responding to your last two messages to me...
Responding to Message 522:
ringo in Message 522 writes: Percy writes:
It isn't a scientific definition. Why do you think religion should have a say in a scientific definition? If science creates the definition then it is a scientific definition.
Why should science define a word that it doesn't use? Science is constantly defining words and terms it wasn't previously using. Whenever a new phenomenon is discovered science defines a word or term it didn't previously use.
Percy writes:
The cartoon is making fun of people like creationists who use Goddidit as a "reason". Is it funny because the scientist made such an absurd error? Is it funny because of the understated way the other scientist calls attention to the error? Is it funny because of the incongruous insertion of a miraculous event into science? That's one interpretation, but there are many others. The comic's by Sidney Harris. Just go to Google Images, enter "then a miracle occurs sidney harris", then visit the webpages where the comic occurs and see all the different interpretations. We'll likely never know the true motivation for the comic because in the New York Times article One-Liners to Lighten Up Science Sidney Harris says:
quote: The comic first appeared in the New Yorker magazine, I couldn't narrow it down to what issue.
Percy writes:
Exactly, which is why scientists wouldn't change their MO, no matter how flagrant the "violation". Known natural or scientific laws have been violated many times in the history of science.... I already agreed with you on this. Of course they wouldn't change their MO. They'd continue to follow the evidence where it leads.
Percy writes:
You keep asking the same question. but what if neither of these possibilities (nor any others) pan out? You keep making the same argument. Repeating the same argument many times as you have won't change the response.
quote: Accurate as ever. Einstein never said this. You can find this misattribution explained on many webpages, e.g., 12 Famous Quotes That Always Get Misattributed.
No matter how many times you ask, the scientific method doesn't change. It's still a closed loop, with no escape hatch if the questions get too hard. Well sure. Scientists will always be attracted to difficult problems, the scientific method will be their guide, and the evidence could indefinitely indicate phenomena inexplicably breaking known natural or scientific laws.
Percy writes:
The level of flagrancy is irrelevant. When in the history of science have known natural or scientific laws been violated as flagrantly as in the proposed scenarios? How so?
There's no such thing in science as a "violation". You're attempting to define away your problem again. Where in science does it say there is no such thing as a violation? In any case, the presented scenarios include violations of known natural or scientific laws.
There's only insufficient understanding. That's always the hope.
Percy writes:
But it is a necessary part of the definition of miracles. Attribution is not a necessary quality of scientific phenomena. You're again repeating your old argument using a religious definition of miracle, and we're doing science here.
That's why miracles are not science. If they leave evidence behind that science can study, then why are they not science?
Percy writes:
That's the analogy I used. To a pig, mud is mud. What kind of analysis do you expect them to do? An accurate analogy to the proposed scenarios in this thread would be if pigs were presented something different to wallow in. As I said, your analogy doesn't apply to the proposed scenarios. A more appropriate analogy would be one where the pigs were presented something different than mud to wallow in. Responding to your Message 523:
ringo in Message 523 writes: Percy writes:
I'm not crafting anything. I'm using the definition as written - the definition that you quoted yourself. More clearly, you and Hume are crafting your definition of miracle as something that can't exist. I'm not sure what you're arguing about. You and Hume agree, right? That by definition miracles can't exist. That's the very definition of defining a problem away. By the way, like you Hume considered miracles from a religious perspective, the only one you're willing to consider.
As far as science is concerned, a violation of natural laws can't exist. An event is only attributed to a "violation" of natural laws by people who believe they can. Yet what if the scientific evidence shows a violation of natural laws, and a consensus develops around the evidence that a violation of natural laws did indeed occur? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
Tangle writes: Agnostics don't exist. Hilarious... Atheist now being dogmatic about the non existence of agnostics. I Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024