Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 12:21 AM
333 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 16 of 20 (823756)
11-16-2017 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ringo
11-16-2017 11:42 AM


Re: What Is Gods Science?
If God uses science, then he's an alien with a more advanced technology than ours. That's the most plausible kind of god.

The minute we can observe it, test it, and understand it, it becomes mundane (muggle) science.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 11-16-2017 11:42 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2017 1:55 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19295
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 17 of 20 (823774)
11-16-2017 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
11-16-2017 12:22 PM


What Is Mundane Science?
Mundane science is not necessarily tied to any scientific field of study ... rather it is defined by whether or not the scientific method can be applied:

Mundane science doesn't necessarily take the last step of documenting in a scientific peer reviewed journal ... because the results are mundane, expected, normal.

Every time we drop a pen on the desk we are testing whether gravity still applies. The expected results are that it does.

Every time we sit in a chair we test that our observation of chairs as safe places to sit is tested. Sometimes that expectation is false and the chair collapses, but the chair can be inspected for causes of failure (load to heavy, stress cracked or decayed structure, it's a folding chair that was improperly opened, etc) -- and that too is mundane science.

So we build up a worldview of pens, and chairs, and doors, and roads, etc etc from our experience and compare them to the experience of other people -- an unwritten peer review -- and by this method, we construct a view of reality that is then a fundamental element of our worldview.

But this worldview reality is a hypothesis of actual REALITY, it is a filter through which we view things.

This has advantages when new experiences fall inside our expectations, going new places and finding pens, and chairs, and doors, and roads, etc etc are similar enough to our experience that they are readily incorporated into our total experience of such observations, because we don't have to spend time on reinventing our understanding of how things work.

Problems arise, however, when a new experience, observation or information, is in conflict with our worldview and contradicts our worldview hypothesis of reality. Then we have two choices:

  1. Alter our worldview to include the new experience, observation or information,
    (this is like bubble 4 in yellow of the diagram)

    or

  2. Deny, reject or ignore the new experience, observation or information, and claim it is false
    (which has no place in the diagram)

The first choice is our common way of adding to our worldview. Say we come to a door with a latching mechanism we have never seen before and don't immediately know how to operate it. We can find out by testing different actions or by getting shown how it works: thereafter it is easily incorporated into our worldview.

The second choice only occurs when we have a strong, emotional, commitment to a core belief that is threatened by the new experience, observation or information, and it is emotionally less tumultuous to maintain the core belief than change it.

It should be noted that in the formal practice of science such new experiences, observations or information, contrary to expectations are readily and actively sought, and that denial is not an option.

This then gives us a measure of how well our personal worldview reality hypothesis matches actual REALITY by the inverse relationship of the degree of denial one must maintain.

A second measure is how well our personal worldview reality hypothesis matches those of other people, with high agreement and consilience showing a positive relationship.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2017 12:22 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 18 of 20 (823810)
11-17-2017 11:24 AM


Definition Of Terms
So what does google have to say regarding definitions of terms?

Miracle
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
"the miracle of rising from the grave"
synonyms: wonder, marvel, sensation, phenomenon, supernatural phenomenon, mystery
a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.

This is why the idea of evidence conflicts with the very definition of a miracle.
It should also be noted that miracles are always welcome events.

NosyNed writes:

What is science then?

RAZD explained it with the critical thinking chart. There is no science regarding miracles. They are by definition unexplainable and/or unverifiable.

jar writes:

First, how would someone identify some event as a miracle?

I suppose that it would be a welcome surprise unexplainable via scientific rationale.

Second, why call something a miracle rather than calling it unexplained?
Depends on how dramatic it is and how many lives are affected. Back in the day, manna from Heaven was a miracle. These days it likely would be both unexplained and a miracle, if people actually benefitted from eating the stuff.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 11-17-2017 11:57 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Tangle, posted 11-17-2017 12:34 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 19 of 20 (823815)
11-17-2017 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
11-17-2017 11:24 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Phatt writes:

It should also be noted that miracles are always welcome events.


Welcomed by whom? The Flood was clearly, "not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 11-17-2017 11:24 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5234
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 20 (823817)
11-17-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
11-17-2017 11:24 AM


Re: Definition Of Terms
Phat writes:

This is why the idea of evidence conflicts with the very definition of a miracle.

Not really. Without evidence we wouldn't know a miracle had happened would we? :-)

If a miracle cures an ill person we would expect at least two pieces of evidence; that the person was ill before the event and not ill after. Ideally, the event would be a woo-style intervention of some sort - the laying on of hands perhaps.

But so-called miracles never, ever involve something where a natural explanation is impossible and/or be objectively evaluated - a 'real' miracle. So in the case of miracle cures, an amputated arm never grows back, but back-ache can be easily cured.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 11-17-2017 11:24 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017