|
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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "True science" must include God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What I want to know is this.
What benefit to inquiry will be gained if we allow the supernatural to be used as an explanation for phenomena in science? For example, what does it mean if a scientist is able to point to some phenomena and say "God did/made that."? Does it mean that we should stop studying it? If we keep studying it and we find evidence of a naturalistic explanation, will this be allowed? Doesn't declaring "Godidit" just stop research altogether, implying that we can somehow be certain that there is no possible naturalistic explanation for the phenomena, even though humans are far from being omnicient?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, how can we tell the difference between a naturalistic phenomena that we do not understand, and may not ever have the technological sophistication or the plain ol' smarts to ever understand, and a supernaturally caused phenomena?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How is the supernatural testable or falsifiable? If the "supernatuiral" obeys physical laws, then it wouldn't be supernatural, it would be natural. If the supernatural does not obey natural law, then we cannot make predictions about a supernatural phenomena, nor can a supernatural phenomena be falsifiable if it does not obey natural law. so, I fail to see how we can address the supernatural with the tools of science.
quote: If we cannot predict or falsify a supernatural event, how can the investigative tools of science be used to understand it? Wouldn't it just end up being subjective experience of individuals?
quote: Well, if true (and I am not convinced that QM verifies anything of the sort) then I would conclude that what certain traditions have called "spiritual" have not been spiritual at all, but natural in origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Correct, but then you go on to say:
quote: But who is to say that "God" did anything? How do you tell the difference between something god did and something nature did that we may or may not ever understand?
quote: Most of the aspects people have ascribed to God over the millenia have been pretty anthropomorphic. A father or mother figure and sometimes animalistic or a force of nature, but generally a lot like us in many aspects. Why on earth would you assume that the aspects "most ascribe to god" are correct? It seems to me that you are approaching this with an enormous monotheistic bias that a great many people in the world do not share. What if the Hindus are correct and there are thousands of gods, or what if the Buddhists are correct and there is no human-like conscious god, only a univeral life force that is shared by us all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
But who is to say that "God" did anything?
How do you tell the difference between something god did and something nature did that we may or may not ever understand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Hypothesis => predictions => testing of predictions = positive evidence or falsification of hypothesis. repeat. If you get a lot of positive evidence for a particular hypothesis that has been tested vigorously from many angles, then it becomes confirmed to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. What possible evidence would count against the existence of the supernatural? What experimental design could possibly show that God is not likely to be the cause of some phenomena? If God does not abide by the laws of physics, how can we make any predictions about what God does or doesn't do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Hypothesis => predictions => testing of predictions = positive evidence or falsification of hypothesis. repeat. If you get a lot of positive evidence for a particular hypothesis that has been tested vigorously from many angles, then it becomes confirmed to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. What possible evidence would count against the existence of the supernatural? What experimental design could possibly show that God is not likely to be the cause of some phenomena? If God does not abide by the laws of physics, how can we make any predictions about what God does or doesn't do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What possible evidence would count against the existence of the supernatural? quote: Nope. The claim is made that if god did something in the natural world, it would be natural, and therefore would fall under science.
quote: Right.
quote: In the context of science, "real" and "abiding by natural law" are not sysnonymous. But if "godidit" and "naturedidit" are indestinguishable to observation, why do you think Godidit? How do you rule out "Godidit" as a cause? Or, how do you rule out "naturedidit" as a cause? How is "Godidit" falsifiable?
What experimental design could possibly show that God is not likely to be the cause of some phenomena? quote: No, the question is not misworded. You have answered some other question, but that's not the one I put forth. What experimental design could possibly show that God is not likely to be the cause of some phenomena? In other words, how could "godidit" be falsified?
quote: What are the potential falsifications of your "it" theory?
quote: What evidence would falsify this "divine force" as a mechanism of creation?
quote: We have no mechnanisms for how an intelligent creator could have created life, either, but at least we have a few physical clues regarding life on Earth at the earliest stages, such as the strong liklihood that carbon was part of first life.
quote: It can all be falsified. All scientific theories are held tentatively, ready to be inproved in light of new evidence. What would falsify your proposal?
If God does not abide by the laws of physics, how can we make any predictions about what God does or doesn't do? quote: It's fine to believe this, but that personal belief is irrelevant to scientific investigation.
quote: But what are your predictions of what we should see in physics, or nature at large, if God did or does X? Predictions and falsifications and evidence. That's what science is. If you don't have any of those, you aren't doing science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I agree.
I like it that way, too. That's why I'm agnostic. There's no use agonizing over something unknowable, so I jut leave it alone. Other people are not comfortable with such ambiguity, so they decide to belive that God is the cause.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024