|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
A couple of hypothetical questions:
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
When doing science, I think they are. Can all drivers see? It's kind of a prerequisite.
Are all scientists agnostic by definition? Phat writes:
How?
Can there ever be a science regarding miracles? Phat writes:
Agnosticism is not a step on the road to atheism. It's a constant state, like the curiosity of scientists. You can "declare atheism" but you're still really agnostic. A scientist can be temporarily stumped but he/she is still looking for answers. There is no reason for scientists to consider the concept of "inexplicable" at all. Will you remain agnostic your entire life or will you declare atheism and stop looking?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Phat writes: Are all scientists agnostic by definition? I don't know.
Can there ever be a science regarding miracles? Sort of, I guess. Miracles are little more than arguments from ignorance, so science could start with "I don't know" and then try to figure it out. Miracles are also often based on poor observations, so science could easily ferret those out.
When you went to church, you never found evidence. Will you remain agnostic your entire life or will you declare atheism and stop looking?
Atheism and agnosticism are two different things. There are agnostic theists, gnostic atheists, and gnostic Christians. Agnosticism is a statement about what we know. Atheism is a statement about what we believe. "Agnostic isn’t just a weaker version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know."--American Atheists Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Agnostics don't exist. You either believe in god(s) or you don't. If you don't know whether you believe in god(s) or not, you don't believe in god(s).
Neither atheists nor agnostics nor deists nor theists have knowledge of god(s). If anyone had knowledge of god(s) we'd all have knowledge of god(s). If such knowledge existed it would be published in Nature and peer reviewed to death. All we have is knowledge of what we believe. Agnosticism is an invented cop-out to avoid a social and intellectual problems. /off rant. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Responding to a couple of your recent messages...
Regarding your Message 492 to me:
ringo in Message 492 writes: Percy writes:
As you seem to understand, there is no point at which scientists stop. Nothing panned out yesterday but they keep looking today. ... but what if nothing panned out? Of course they keep looking. But for as long as nothing pans out the violations of known natural or scientific laws would remain, for the time being, inexplicable.
Percy writes:
Explain why you think it doesn't support my contention. It's called a miracle by the Catholic Church but it's explained by scientists. My contention is that scientists don't call events miracles. We already discussed the Miracle of the Sun, and it doesn't support your contention. You're back to your broken record again, reintroducing old arguments as if they hadn't already been addressed.
Percy writes:
I'm not ignoring it. I'm trying to figure out why you don't understand your own words. You say that scientists would work very hard to understand the phenomenon and than you say that they would stop working and call it a miracle. How many times are you just going to forget or ignore the many descriptions of how hard scientists would work to understand things. My dear boy, nobody implied that calling it a miracle would bring research to a halt. Giving dark energy a name didn't end research, why would giving inexplicable violations of natural or scientific laws a name end research?
Or are you saying that they would call it a miracle and go on working anyway? Yes, of course.
in that case, why call it a miracle at all? Why not just call it something they're working on? I kinda think you know they'd give it a name and that it wouldn't be "something we're working on."
Percy writes:
No it doesn't. The comic shows a lot of figures on the blackboard which clearly took a lot of effort. "Insert miracle here" is from a comic and implies no effort was made to study the phenomenon. You think the comic implies they put a lot of effort into the miracle step? Hmmm, interesting. In any case, the answer to your original question about the difference between "no explanations are forthcoming" and "insert miracle here" remains the same, that "no explanations are forthcoming" means that no ideas have panned out so far, while "insert miracle here" means just declaring something a miracle. I get the feeling that you view them as synonymous terms. If so then I of course disagree, but it doesn't seem worth arguing about.
Percy writes:
Huh? The sun rising is not unprecedented. ringo writes:
Obviously false. The sun will rise tomorrow. Unprecedented? I don't think so. Everything is unprecedented until it happens. The sun rising tomorrow hasn't happened yet and therefore according to your statement is unprecedented. Perhaps you meant "every phenomenon" rather than "everything," but that doesn't work either. The history of science is of discovering new phenomena that in some way add to what we know of existing phenomena. That's why we made sure that the suggested scenarios represent phenomena that violate existing phenomena, something unprecedented in the history of science.
Percy writes:
When they come to the end of the trail, they don't just stand there. They ask, "Where to now?" They follow the evidence where it leads. Agreed.
Percy writes:
More tentative explanations. The "tentative explanations" don't pan out. Now what. I think we may be using the word "explanation" differently. When you say "explanation" I think you mean an idea or proposal or unproven hypothesis. When I say "explanation" I have in mind something more complete around which, at a minimum, a consensus has begun to form. Relativity is an explanation. Ideas about, for example, why there's more matter than antimatter, don't seem like explanations to me, since they haven't uncovered enough evidence to build a consensus. I don't think this is a case where one of us is right and the other wrong. It just points out the need to agree on a definition.
Please make up your mind. Do they stop looking or not? I don't think I've ever said or implied that scientific research ever ends. Science never stops questioning. Naturally investigation is directed into areas that appear to have the most promise for new knowledge, with the result that areas that appear well established tend to receive very little attention, but that seems okay to me.
ringo writes: Percy writes:
It indicates my inability to move you forward. Do you seriously not know that your inability to move beyond your original arguments makes clear how bereft your position is? You mean backward.
But you're the guy who denied that the word "attributed" was there, even though you quoted it. Yes, that was me, but your current arguments must stand on their own merits and not on accusations that I'm not perfect, because I'm sure that's a quality you also do not share.
And you're the guy who refuses to acknowledge that attribution is important in miracles even though it's mentioned in virtually every definition. And you're the guy who doesn't see that actual events are called miracles by believers but not by scientists. It's been said many times now that the particular term chosen by science for inexplicable phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws isn't important, yet you're still hung up on the term "miracles". This is a science discussion, not a religious one, and it's already been established that attribution or cause isn't a necessary quality of scientific phenomena. You continue to return to your original arguments as if substantial discussion about them hasn't already taken place, a strong indication that your position is bereft of merit.
Percy writes:
I'm like the janitor here. I clean up your mess. If you make the same mess tomorrow, I have to clean it up again tomorrow. That's the nature of the job. Like the scientists, I don't at some point decide that the mess is a miracle and can't be stopped. Like the scientists, I just keep going. If you were doing your job right no one would be discussing this. Mr. Janitor, you're cleaning up the wrong aisle!
Percy writes:
Absence of evidence for fairies, absences of evidence for the Loch Ness Monster, absence of evidence for UFO abductions, etc. Yup, sometimes. ... is that what you think, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? You chopped off the front part of my sentence that indicated agreement with your "Yup, sometimes". But you also chopped off the part that reminded you we're talking about miracles. So asking the question again, is that what you think about miracles, that absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence? If so, why?
Percy writes:
Then why are you suggesting that scientists would run out of possible explanations for your flying bridge? ringo writes:
Obviously from context (see the sentence preceding your cut-n-paste) I was not. Are you suggesting that scientists have not proposed explanations for all of those things? I think that if you try to find where I suggested this that you'll come up dry.
Percy writes:
From previous experience with pigs. They see mud and they wallow. They don't need a definition. First, without defining how the new mud is different from the old mud, how do you know pigs would wallow in it? You still seem to be claiming knowledge you don't have, but let's just say you know your pigs and are correct. The actual point was that you didn't choose an inappropriate analogy, and if pigs actually do wallow in all types of mud, including any new type of mud, that just makes the analogy even worse.
Scientists see questions and they propose answers. Agreed.
Percy writes:
I would expect them to wallow in that too. A more fitting analogy would be to ask what pigs who only knew mud would do were they one day confronted by snow? Hmmm. That sounds unexpected. Is that what you observe your pigs doing in snow up there in the frozen wasteland? But that's beside the point. What's important is the inappropriate nature of the analogy you chose.
I would not expect them to care whether it was "unprecedented" or whether it violated any pig laws. Hardly relevant. Your analogy is not only inappropriate, but upon further consideration isn't helpful, either. The main point is that science follows where the evidence leads. The unprecedented nature of violations of known natural or scientific laws would lead scientists in new directions. Regarding your Message 495 to Phat:
Phat writes:
There's only so much that can be invented, so let's close the Patent Office? There is only so much that can be studied. Or, as we often tell creationists, questions usually produce more questions than answers. We agree on this.
Phat writes:
It isn't as if every scientist on earth would be studying the phenomenon in the first place. The vast majority of them would leave it to somebody else to figure out - which is another reason why there could never be a consensus calling it a miracle. You must concede, however, that a fair number would actually give up further research and go on with their lives. The relevant consensus is the one among the scientists in the new field of study focused on the new phenomena. That most scientists are in other fields doesn't matter. Of course a consensus could form among scientists in this new field. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Im taking this response here.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
It's hard to nail your jello to the wall. If research wouldn't come to a halt, why would scientists take time out to call something a miracle? It seems redundant.
My dear boy, nobody implied that calling it a miracle would bring research to a halt. Percy writes:
Well, where did all of those figures come from? Thin air?
You think the comic implies they put a lot of effort into the miracle step? Percy writes:
The sun rising every day in the past is well-documented. That's why we can comfortably predict that it will rise tomorrow. The sun rising tomorrow hasn't happened yet and therefore according to your statement is unprecedented. On the other hand, scientists haven't labelled things as miracles, even when they were temporarily inexplicable. (If you have examples of scientists labelling things as miracles in the past, feel free to cite them.) That's why we can comfortably predict that they won't do it tomorrow.
Percy writes:
The thread is about miracles and you keep calling them miracles.
It's been said many times now that the particular term chosen by science for inexplicable phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws isn't important, yet you're still hung up on the term "miracles". Percy writes:
No it hasn't. It has been established that events that are called miracles are only called miracles in a religious context, not in a scientific context. The attribution to unnatural causes is the only thing that distinguishes a "miracle' from any other event. That isn't going to change just because you don't like it.
... it's already been established that attribution or cause isn't a necessary quality of scientific phenomena. Percy writes:
How so? The analogy is that scientists wallow in all types of questions, including the inexplicable ones. We have no reason to think they would handle a "new" question differently. The actual point was that you didn't choose an inappropriate analogy, and if pigs actually do wallow in all types of mud, including any new type of mud, that just makes the analogy even worse.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: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
It's hard to nail your jello to the wall. My dear boy, nobody implied that calling it a miracle would bring research to a halt. There *are* profound philosophical and perhaps unanswerable questions surrounding the boundaries of science. I found a good discussion from a somewhat religious perspective at Miracles and Science: The Long Shadow of David Hume. I'm a little hesitant to introduce any of it into this discussion as you completely ignored my attempt in Message 468 to introduce some of the arguments from Science and Miracles into this discussion, but I'll say just a little anyway. David Hume wrote:
quote: Hume is arguing that past experience is proof that miracles can't exist. My own reaction is that this violates tentativity, but the essay itself addresses the question from several points of view, including the one that miracles are non-repeatable and a-scientific, a view you might share. I won't invest further time describing the essay as I fear the effort might, as before, draw no response and be wasted, but if your response indicates an interest then maybe there's something we can discuss.
If research wouldn't come to a halt, why would scientists take time out to call something a miracle? It seems redundant. 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:
Well, where did all of those figures come from? Thin air? You think the comic implies they put a lot of effort into the miracle step? It's a comic, not real life. Are you imagining that the comic's author did anything more than make stuff up or copy stuff out of a math book? 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"? If so then I still have the same reaction: Hmmm, interesting.
Percy writes:
The sun rising every day in the past is well-documented. That's why we can comfortably predict that it will rise tomorrow. The sun rising tomorrow hasn't happened yet and therefore according to your statement is unprecedented. Yes, of course, and so I was correct that you actually meant "every phenomena", not "everything".
On the other hand, scientists haven't labelled things as miracles, even when they were temporarily inexplicable. But you're leaving out the violation of known natural or scientific laws, something scientists haven't encountered before.
(If you have examples of scientists labelling things as miracles in the past, feel free to cite them.) That's why we can comfortably predict that they won't do it tomorrow. Is the word "unprecedented" really so difficult for you to understand?
Percy writes:
The thread is about miracles and you keep calling them miracles. It's been said many times now that the particular term chosen by science for inexplicable phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws isn't important, yet you're still hung up on the term "miracles". Yes, of course. As already pointed out many times now, were science to identify evidence of actual miracles they might choose some other term, but such phenomena would still be inexplicable violations of known natural or scientific laws.
Percy writes:
No it hasn't. ... it's already been established that attribution or cause isn't a necessary quality of scientific phenomena. Um, yes it has. Do you need to be reminded of the two-slit experiment and quantum entanglement and radioactive decay and so forth?
It has been established that events that are called miracles are only called miracles in a religious context, not in a scientific context. Up until now that is true. But what if tomorrow that changed?
The attribution to unnatural causes is the only thing that distinguishes a "miracle" from any other event. That isn't going to change just because you don't like it. It has nothing to do with whether I like it and everything to do with you declaring things true that are not so.
Percy writes:
How so? The actual point was that you didn't choose an inappropriate analogy, and if pigs actually do wallow in all types of mud, including any new type of mud, that just makes the analogy even worse. 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 what's being proposed in this thread would be if pigs were presented something different to wallow in.
The analogy is that scientists wallow in all types of questions, including the inexplicable ones. We have no reason to think they would handle a "new" question differently. But it's a new (no quotes) and unprecedented question. Incorporating into science the hypothesis that there can be violations of known natural or scientific laws would require some new thinking. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Hume is arguing that past experience is proof that miracles can't exist. My own reaction is that this violates tentativity, but the essay itself addresses the question from several points of view, including the one that miracles are non-repeatable and a-scientific, a view you might share. Have you recently changed your mind on this?
quote: Message 718 quote:quote:Because it's a miracle. Message 735 quote: Message 753 quote: Message 908 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." Scientists tend to go for 'anomalous'. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example was an anomaly in the 19th Century. It didn't seem to conform to Newtonian laws (ie., the known natural laws of the time).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Percy writes: Hume is arguing that past experience is proof that miracles can't exist. Hume is just doing what ringo is doing - defining away the argument. Like ringo, he's refusing the what if. It's only when you allow the what if that you can make any form of progress. If you disallow the concept there's nothing more to say.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Creator of the natural laws could certainly suspend them if He wanted to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Faith writes: The Creator of the natural laws could certainly suspend them if He wanted to. Well that's certainly what believers in that sort of magic believe. The problem is that if this god thing ever did suspend natural laws we'd have evidence if it. But of course he never does so he's not playing or he doesn't exist. The other problem is that believers like you tell us that he suspends natural laws all the time. But strangely there's never any real world evidence of it. I'd say that's conclusive.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Aaa, this has been answered a million times already. There simply is no physical evidence left behind from a one-time miraculous event. Even if there are physical remains there is no way to prove they got there by anything but nonmiraculous means. You may have wine left in the pot that was changed to wine from water but just that fact proves nothing about how it got there. You'd have to have been there when the miracle occurred. Or of course believe those who were and try to tell you about it in the teeth of your refusal to believe, which you won't no matter what they say, as this thread amply demonstrates. The Bible gives plenty of witnesses to miracles but you rationalize them all away. You want "scientific" evidence of something that simply by its nature can't exist. The argument is ridiculously futile. I believe the Bible witnesses, you don't and really, that's all there is to it.
So, no, we would NOT have evidence of a miracle if it occurred. I haven't argued that God "suspends natural laws all the time," and I don't know who does. He's pretty sparing with His miracles it seems to me. He rather likes His natural laws and the science based on them. The biblical reasons for the miracles are always to validate the claim that the God of the Bible is the Creator God who made it all and runs it all, and that Jesus is also God. It's to demonstrate divine powers to distinguish the true God from lesser gods. Even miracles claimed today are generally done in parts of the world where the people have never heard the gospel, where they need proof of the divine power of the God they are being told about, since they know of the lesser powers of their local gods who can't do what the Creator God can do. Those who live in a Christianity-saturated culture have all the proof we need in the millions of witnesses and the whole history of Christianity. If you spend all your energy debunking it, that's your loss. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Faith writes: Or of course believe those who were and try to tell you about it in the teeth of your refusal to believe, which you won't no matter what they say, as this thread amply demonstrates. That's correct, I'm not going to believe anything a believer says without evidence. Your primitive believes have been shown to be wrong time and time again.
The Bible gives plenty of witnesses to miracles but you rationalize them all away.
I would rationalise them away if their was anything rational about them. The bible is only evidence that someone - we don't even know who or even when - wrote down some stories. Nothing else.
You want "scientific" evidence of something that simply by its nature can't exist. Anything that happens in the natural world leaves evidence. You've spent fruitless years trying to tell us that with your flood nonsense.
The argument is ridiculously futile. I believe the Bible witnesses, you don't and really, that's all there is to it. Yup, but here you are again being futile.
So, no, we would NOT have evidence of a miracle if it occurred. Of course it would, anything that interferes with the natural world must, by definition, leave evidence - for example a faith healer would leave someone who was ill not ill. But they never ever do anything conclusive. Why not? Answer: because they can't.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That would depend on the miracle. There is no reason why we could not have good evidence of a miraculous healing, for instance. All we would need are good medical records before and after confirming that something miraculous had happened. As. I’ve said before prophecy should be a particularly easy case to prove. Instead we have believers declaring verses to be prophecies long after the supposed fulfilment and trying to cover up failures.
quote: Miracle stories are common - especially in ancient documents. Demonstrated miracles are not. Only the gullible would trust in stories.
quote: But let us note that you are the one clinging to rationalisations. There is no good reason why there cannot be evidence of miracles. While it is harder for examples in the ancient past it is certainly possible. Even if we exclude predictive prophecy it is notable that we can’t track down the Plagues of Egypt, for instance in either history or archaeology.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024