Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God, Naturalism, and Science
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 1 of 10 (527516)
10-01-2009 4:34 PM


Hi everybody.
Science is not such a strict thing as people here think. Time after time I've heard that, because it refuses to consider the supernatural, opinions are automatically dashed before they are considered. However, I don't think this is a correct stance. Sure, science only works with the natural world, but that's because it's all that we objectively know. By "objective," I mean that all people, regardless of religion or culture, can come to that same conclusion- or at least similar ones- by observing the facts.
What I am asking is this: If God(s) revealed him/themselves to us today, then wouldn't scientists everywhere work to understand how he does what he does? Even if he had absolute power over the universe, there would have to be a way that he did it (maybe quantum... ). In other words, in my opinion, whether or not the cause (God) is supernatural or not, the effect must be natural and thus is capable of being tested.
Please note that I would not like this to degenerate into an "is religion factual" argument.
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2009 10:28 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied
 Message 7 by bluescat48, posted 10-02-2009 11:47 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 10 (527650)
10-02-2009 12:56 AM


As presented, I just don't have a good feeling about this one
Is there a debate theme in there?
Feel free to edit message 1 or to post a new message in this same topic. But I just don't see this one being functional as initially presented.
It kind of reminds me of a topic I wrote and proposed under the influence of alcohol - It got rejected.
Adminnemooseus

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 3 of 10 (527819)
10-02-2009 5:51 PM


Re: As presented, I just don't have a good feeling about this one
Check my edit.
Thanks

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 4 of 10 (527854)
10-02-2009 9:22 PM


Still kind of nebulous, but I'll promote it
My prediction is that this topic will go nowhere, and if it does go somewhere, it won't be a good somewhere. But I may be wrong.
Adminnemooseus

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 10 (527857)
10-02-2009 9:23 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the God, Naturalism, and Science thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 6 of 10 (527863)
10-02-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns
10-01-2009 4:34 PM


Hi, T&U.
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Science is not such a strict thing as people here think... What I am asking is this: If God(s) revealed him/themselves to us today, then wouldn't scientists everywhere work to understand how he does what he does?
I don't think anybody (at least anybody worth mentioning) defines science such that it excludes God in principle. But, it's not the principle of a God that the religious adhere to, but the uncompromising belief in a specific, but implausible, model of God that is rejected by science.
No real scientist would have a problem acknowledging a God who was objectively evidenced in the natural world, and no one would define "science" such that it excludes such a God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 10-01-2009 4:34 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by slevesque, posted 10-03-2009 1:08 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 7 of 10 (527866)
10-02-2009 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns
10-01-2009 4:34 PM


What I am asking is this: If God(s) revealed him/themselves to us today, then wouldn't scientists everywhere work to understand how he does what he does?
In one sense yes in another no. It would still be the natural/supernatural impasse. Unless the supernatural could be explained naturally there would still be the conflict.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 10-01-2009 4:34 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 8 of 10 (527873)
10-03-2009 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Blue Jay
10-02-2009 10:28 PM


Be careful with the fallacy of reification here, 'science' doesn't reject anything. Scientist reject, as they are the ones defining what science is and is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2009 10:28 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Blue Jay, posted 10-03-2009 1:32 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 10 by Larni, posted 10-03-2009 4:45 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 9 of 10 (527874)
10-03-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by slevesque
10-03-2009 1:08 AM


Hi, Slevesque.
slevesque writes:
Be careful with the fallacy of reification here, 'science' doesn't reject anything. Scientist reject, as they are the ones defining what science is and is not.
Be careful with the fallacy of reification here, 'science' doesn't reject anything. Scientist reject, as they are the ones defining what science is and is not.
It's not reification: "science" is as much a profession (i.e., a community of people) as an abstract concept. I anthropomorphized it in an effort to avoid sounding like I'm trying to speak for every single scientist in the world.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by slevesque, posted 10-03-2009 1:08 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 10 of 10 (527887)
10-03-2009 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by slevesque
10-03-2009 1:08 AM


A scientist is called a scientist because they use science as is.
You cannot redefine the meaning of a word to benefit from its credibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by slevesque, posted 10-03-2009 1:08 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024