Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 181 of 396 (481811)
09-12-2008 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by dwise1
11-28-2007 4:45 PM


Re: Bumped 'cos they're Stumped
that is excellent dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by dwise1, posted 11-28-2007 4:45 PM dwise1 has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 182 of 396 (496393)
01-28-2009 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Otto Tellick
09-02-2008 11:40 PM


supernatural
So you appeal to the Bible to answer a simple scientific question on the definition of supernatural?
Can you state where the Bible defines the term "supernatural" from a scientific perspective?
Hmmm.....I would say from a scientific perspective, anything that is real, including God and anything considered "spiritual" or "supernatural" is by definition, from a scientific perspective, natural. To claim otherwise is simply to try to win an argument via semantics.
As far as the Bible, God is presented as real and interactive with the physical world. If the "supernatural" exists, from a science perspective, it is part of the real and therefore natural world.
The Bible also depicts the spiritual world and spiritual principles as intertwined with the physical world and not something altogether unconnected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-02-2008 11:40 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-28-2009 4:29 AM randman has replied
 Message 186 by Granny Magda, posted 01-28-2009 12:30 PM randman has replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 183 of 396 (496404)
01-28-2009 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by randman
01-28-2009 1:40 AM


Re: supernatural
randman writes:
So you appeal to the Bible to answer a simple scientific question on the definition of supernatural?
You misunderstand me (still): I "appealed" to the bible because I assume you accept it as a usable reference and because it provides lots of clear examples that help to define "supernatural". I do not consider the "definition of supernatural" to be a scientific question at all -- science deals only with what is "natural", i.e. consistently explainable on the basis of observable and confirmable evidence.
Can you state where the Bible defines the term "supernatural" from a scientific perspective?
Of course not. There's virtually nothing in the bible that is applicable to a "scientific perspective". I'm saying (again) that the bible provides many clear examples of events with supernatural properties (things that would be properly deemed physically impossible, based on thousands of years of objective observations of the world), and supernatural causes (things that happened specifically because the unseen God made them happen).
These are things (such as the global flood or the Tower of Babel) that science would never even attempt to explain, because all the objective evidence that science has gathered over the centuries makes it clear that these things really did NOT happen. We've only read about these things in the bible (and we've read similar stories from other mythological traditions from roughly the same epoch and region), and that's because someone wrote them down based on oral folklore (or divine inspiration, if you prefer), rather than on direct observation.
I would say from a scientific perspective, anything that is real, including God and anything considered "spiritual" or "supernatural" is by definition, from a scientific perspective, natural. To claim otherwise is simply to try to win an argument via semantics.
And I would say that you are dishing out double-speak. You are arranging your nouns and conjunctions to put things together (like "God" and "real", "supernatural" and "science") that simply do not belong together in any objective discourse. Your sense of semantics has been distorted by equivocation to the point of being meaningless.
As far as the Bible, God is presented as real and interactive with the physical world.
And that is why it is a mistake to firmly believe, in contradiction to ample evidence, that all assertions in the bible must be taken as literal, historical fact, because this cannot be true for all assertions in the bible. If instead you take these counter-factual assertions as being symbolic or allegorical or metaphorical or "archaic and outdated hence not currently applicable or useful" or whatever, you have a much better opportunity for deriving more meaning and value from the text, while still having the benefit of knowing and accepting reality for what it really is.
The bible serves well as a record of religious belief and doctrine, and there is value in that. It does not serve very well as a scientific or historical reference -- this is especially true for its opening chapters.
If the "supernatural" exists, from a science perspective, it is part of the real and therefore natural world.
Yeah, IF... (... a big if ...)
But you have to face this: the "supernatural" does not exist "from a science perspective". It is only "part of the real and natural world" from your own subjective, personal point of view, which others do not share, and which science cannot explain (except perhaps by reference to psychological peculiarities).
As for the intertwining of spiritual and physical worlds and principles, that certainly is the bible's domain, and I have no problem with that -- if it works for you, I'm glad -- but don't expect that it can be connected in any way with science. That is decidedly outside of science's domain, and science will neither help nor hinder anyone's beliefs in that matter.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor grammar repair

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by randman, posted 01-28-2009 1:40 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by randman, posted 01-28-2009 12:16 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 184 of 396 (496470)
01-28-2009 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Otto Tellick
01-28-2009 4:29 AM


Re: supernatural
Few points:
1. Can you show where the Bible defines "supernatural" in a manner relevant to the discussion?
2. Science does not define natural by what is testable or observable as you claim. The idea is what is potentially observable. If the technology or means to experimentally verify something have not been developed yet, that doesn't mean something is not natural. It just means science currently lacks the technology or creativity to test something.
3. You seem to fall back on the idea that something is supernatural if it is "physically impossible" but if something occurs, then by definition it is possible. So that's not a good argument on your part.
4. You cite the Flood but contradict yourself by saying that science has been able to rule that out. Besides the point that plenty of people do seek to explain the Flood using science, the very fact it is, according to you, a testable concept which you claim has been refuted demonstrates your argument is wrong. If the concept can be disproven by science, then it can be proven. It is therefore testable by science.
5. On your comment on God, you are falling back on semantics. If God is real, then you cannot argue God cannot be considered a force or causal for anything. Your argument amounts to classifying God, a theological doctrine I might add, as a means to discount a priori God as causal.
6. Moreover, there is ample evidence for God. The experience of millions of people attests to it. Just because you prefer to ignore that evidence, and the fact science has not figured out how to test for God's presence and activity, does not mean it is impossible to do so. It could be, but that would be a theological argument, not a scientific one. Science has taken up the challenge to explore people's reports on many issues. Simply saying it cannot be done with something spiritual or aspects of God is silly.
7. I'll close with a thought. Medical science has from time to time confirmed medical miracles during certain sorts of revival meetings. The healings are considered miracles because they cannot be explained by normal medicine. Once when taking a woman's study class, for example, with a liberal, professor from Duke, the point was brought up in a paper that miracles during the controversial Aimmee Simple McPhearson's meetings were confirmed by doctors that were skeptics intent on showing her to be a charlatan. Whereas they could not confirm her personal character, they certainly confirmed the miracles. You can say that's not applicable if you want but for those that have experienced such miracles, it's quite obvious that God is real and His biblical principles are effectual, at least some aspect of them. That doesn't mean the whole Bible is true, and I would agree that's a matter of faith.
Then again, so is the claim that it's not true.
I guess what I am saying is all the evidence points to God being real and so having faith in that is supported by evidence whereas having faith God is not real is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Just labelling God "supernatural" without realizing that is only a term applicable in theology and not science is a poor argument on your part. From a biblical perspective, the spiritual is intertwined with the physical, so much so that we live in a spiritual world as much as a physical one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-28-2009 4:29 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 185 of 396 (496475)
01-28-2009 12:22 PM


A Word To All
I intend to moderate this thread attentively.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 186 of 396 (496478)
01-28-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by randman
01-28-2009 1:40 AM


Re: supernatural
Hi Randman,
quote:
Can you state where the Bible defines the term "supernatural" from a scientific perspective?
The Bible doesn't define anything from a scientific perspective. It was written long before there was any such concept as science. Nor does science, or its methodology require definition by reference to the Bible. This is no more valid than suggesting that science be defined according to the Vedas or the Quran.
Science is more than capable of defining its own terms. The Bible is wholly irrelevant to this.
Mutate and Survive.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by randman, posted 01-28-2009 1:40 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by randman, posted 01-28-2009 12:41 PM Granny Magda has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 187 of 396 (496484)
01-28-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Granny Magda
01-28-2009 12:30 PM


Re: supernatural
So you agree with me then that the Bible does not define God supernaturally in a manner consistent with claims that God is a scientifically untestable or unknowable concept in all aspects?
Good. So can we move on from trying to use that argument to claim ID has to come up with supernatural explanations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Granny Magda, posted 01-28-2009 12:30 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Granny Magda, posted 01-28-2009 12:57 PM randman has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 188 of 396 (496489)
01-28-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by randman
01-28-2009 12:41 PM


Re: supernatural
No, I am simply telling you that what the Bible defines or does not define is not of any relevance to the practise of methodological naturalism. Modern science does not rely upon ancient religious texts for its definitions, nor should it.
Just out of interest Rand, how do you suggest that science go about testing a supposedly omnipotent entity?
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by randman, posted 01-28-2009 12:41 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by randman, posted 01-28-2009 1:07 PM Granny Magda has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 189 of 396 (496493)
01-28-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Granny Magda
01-28-2009 12:57 PM


Re: supernatural
There are a number of ways to test for aspects of the spiritual realm and God, imo. I wouldn't think all aspects of God are testable but the part about where God interacts to do things in the universe are likely testable.
IDers currently believe in doing that via forensic analysis. I am sure you read the paper?
What you may be asking is, Ok, how about a mechanism? First I would say that plenty of theories including Darwin's have come about without a real mechanism explained.
Nevertheless, in this case, I would look to spiritual mechanisms as a hypothesis and classify a number of spiritual principles widely accepted in various traditions and then look to see if in the study of an area such as physics, these principles apppear to be reflected in the study of how the world works, and in fact, though outside the scope here, this is already being done as many aspects of QM imo dovetail spiritual principles in a manner indicating they are the same sort of mechanism. Keep in mind the term "spiritual" from a biblical perspective does not mean imaginary or outside of one's daily experience or the universe. It is a realm invisible to the naked eye, sure, but at the same time, the Bible speaks of this realm as seeming counter-intuitive to a physical perspective best described as more a classical physics perspective. In other words, dig a little deeper into the world we see with our eyes and you can find principles that seemingly contradict or work a little differently than what most might think of as common sense.
There is also work from men like Tipler in his book the Omega point, just as one example, of scientists publishing theories that point or "prove" the existence of God in some sense of another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Granny Magda, posted 01-28-2009 12:57 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Granny Magda, posted 01-28-2009 1:34 PM randman has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 190 of 396 (496500)
01-28-2009 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by randman
01-28-2009 1:07 PM


Re: supernatural
quote:
First I would say that plenty of theories including Darwin's have come about without a real mechanism explained.
As you ought to know, Darwin's theory was not widely accepted as true before explanatory mechanisms were found. It hardly matters from our perspective. We have explanatory mechanisms now, namely genetics.
quote:
Nevertheless, in this case, I would look to spiritual mechanisms as a hypothesis and classify a number of spiritual principles widely accepted in various traditions and then look to see if in the study of an area such as physics, these principles apppear to be reflected in the study of how the world works
I have bolded the problem areas for you. These are all subjective terms and thus of no use in scientific enquiry. What is spiritual? One man's spirituality is another man's gobbledygook.
quote:
Keep in mind the term "spiritual" from a biblical perspective does not mean imaginary or outside of one's daily experience or the universe. It is a realm invisible to the naked eye, sure, but...
But nothing. It is not only invisible to the naked eye, but to all other objective systems of measurement. that renders it useless to scientific enquiry. Furthermore, the actions of an omnipotent entity would be undetectable and indistinguishable from the lack of such actions, should said entity decide to make it so. Given that a great many of the claims associated with God are clearly contradicted by observation, it is only reasonable to suppose that, if he were responsible for events like the creation of the earth, he has chosen to do it in a way that masks his involvement. This apparent mixture of omnipotence and dishonesty/disinclination to reveal himself make it impossible to say anything concrete about God or his actions.
quote:
In other words, dig a little deeper into the world we see with our eyes and you can find principles that seemingly contradict or work a little differently than what most might think of as common sense.
But these phenomena can be observed, albeit not with the naked eye. Common sense doesn't come into it.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by randman, posted 01-28-2009 1:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by randman, posted 01-28-2009 2:29 PM Granny Magda has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 191 of 396 (496509)
01-28-2009 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Granny Magda
01-28-2009 1:34 PM


Re: supernatural
The term God is a term like spiritual in that it predates science. Your argument seems to be that if a term predates science, it cannot be used in discussion.
Did the real world exist prior to modern science?
I would say that it did. How about you?
So we have a proposition that the universe consists in part of realms or dimensions or properties that men have called "spiritual." If you think somehow using science to see if physics and science has delved into this realm is wrong, then once again you are making a circular fallacious argument.
You asked for how to test for aspects of God or mechanisms that God might use, and I answered you, and then you say no answer is no answer is possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Granny Magda, posted 01-28-2009 1:34 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Modulous, posted 01-28-2009 3:00 PM randman has not replied
 Message 193 by Granny Magda, posted 01-28-2009 5:14 PM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 192 of 396 (496512)
01-28-2009 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by randman
01-28-2009 2:29 PM


Re: supernatural
You are right. The dualistic idea of natural/supernatural was not set up in a time of rigorous science. When science came to discuss these ideas it found a number of problems:
  1. Supernatural is ill-defined. If we don't even know what we are looking for, how can we tell if we've found it?
  2. The properties of this supernatural realm vary from account to account.
  3. Almost universally, the claim was drawn up that methodological naturalism was not up to the task of exploring whatever the supernatural turned out to be
So science settled on continuing to look at the natural world, trying to describe what happens in it and attempting to formulate explanations for things that happen.
So far, nothing that has been established as a phenomenon that really does happen beyond reasonable doubt, has required an explanation outside of what we have termed the natural world.
Maybe the old dualists were wrong, and the monists were right. Maybe 'spiritual' stuff is no different, fundamentally, than 'material' stuff. The question remains: Does anybody have any ideas how we might go into confirming if this is the case? Any ideas how this 'spiritual' stuff might affect the evolution of populations? Without even being able to define what is 'spiritual', or 'supernatural' it seems difficult to explore whether a spiritual or supernatural did anything. As it stands, there is no evidence of a material entity interfering with nature at opportune moments any more than there is for a supernatural one.
quote:
A required component of that proof is a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate.
Any thoughts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by randman, posted 01-28-2009 2:29 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 3:08 PM Modulous has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 193 of 396 (496520)
01-28-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by randman
01-28-2009 2:29 PM


Re: supernatural
quote:
The term God is a term like spiritual in that it predates science. Your argument seems to be that if a term predates science, it cannot be used in discussion.
That is nt my argument and I cannot imagine what might have given you that idea. You asked;
randman writes:
Can you state where the Bible defines the term "supernatural" from a scientific perspective?
I pointed out that the Bible doesn't define anything from a scientific perspective.
I object to terms like "spiritual" in science, not because of their antiquity, but because they are wholly subjective. I thought I made that clear. If you can provide an objective method of measuring spirituality, that can be agreed upon, then science might be able to take a crack at studying it. Thus far you have not done so.
quote:
So we have a proposition that the universe consists in part of realms or dimensions or properties that men have called "spiritual." If you think somehow using science to see if physics and science has delved into this realm is wrong, then once again you are making a circular fallacious argument.
No, I am in favour of studying whatever can be objectively defined and observed. Some phenomena that "men have called "spiritual."" might fit that description. Others, like your poorly defined spirituality, do not. They are necessarily outside the scope of what science is able to grasp.
quote:
You asked for how to test for aspects of God or mechanisms that God might use, and I answered you, and then you say no answer is no answer is possible
Call it a rhetorical question.
Think about it though; is there any observation that could be made of an omnipotent entity that said entity could not tamper with in order to produce false results? Clearly not. Any such entity could use its omnipotence to give any result it wanted. Any result would be worthless. That may be fine in theology, but it is certainly not science.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by randman, posted 01-28-2009 2:29 PM randman has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 194 of 396 (496636)
01-29-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Modulous
01-28-2009 3:00 PM


Re: supernatural
Modulous writes:
Supernatural is ill-defined. If we don't even know what we are looking for, how can we tell if we've found it?
We wouldn't know, if we are afraid to look for it. Here is one case of something supernatural:
CLAIM:
- you, or anyone else on Earth, has never had contact with matter. You have never really touched the floor you are sitting on. In fact, you are not sitting in your chair, you are hovering above it. This is so because the electrons in the outer shells of the atoms are never touching, they start to repel each other before and you are actually "flying" 10^-8 cm. above your chair. In fact you have been floating above what you call matter all your life, at 10^-8 cm.
Or
- those elementary particles that also behave like waves some of the time, they have the ability to observe themselves.
Or
- the universe that does not expand into anything but into itself.
So what is natural? I assert that what you call natural is more ill-defined than "supernatural", because we are supernatural. Even what you obscurely call "emergent property" is another label for just that - the Supernatural.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Modulous, posted 01-28-2009 3:00 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2009 3:30 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 01-29-2009 3:34 PM Agobot has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 195 of 396 (496639)
01-29-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Agobot
01-29-2009 3:08 PM


Re: supernatural
So what is natural? I assert that what you call natural is more ill-defined than "supernatural", because we are supernatural. Even what you obscurely call "emergent property" is another label for just that - the Supernatural.
It's just semantics. The point remains - the 'science can't study the supernatural' simply means that science can't study something with no set rules. It is a good defence mechanism of those that believe in something we might call supernatural (science can't study ancestor spirits/gods/djinn/domovoi) since if we assume that science could study them, then it would seem they don't exist.
If you want your cake, and have science be able to tackle the supernatural, then you can't eat it too and have an entity that can be supplicated to intervene in daily affairs.
Alternatively, you can try to muddy the issue with nonsense pseudo-philosophical sophistry. The underlying question is this: Is the entity supposed to exist as some kind of creator or designer by the ID 'theorists' something that science can investigate?
If it is, how?
If it is not, why?
No need to concern ourself with whether the fundamental forces of nature are 'supernatural', "This is so because the electrons in the outer shells of the atoms are never touching, they start to repel each other before and you are actually "flying" 10^-8 cm. above your chair" nor does we need to wonder if sever misunderstandings of quantum physics is supernatural, "those elementary particles that also behave like waves some of the time, they have the ability to observe themselves.". To answer, the former claim is natural. It occurs observably in nature. Nature being where we live and exist, the realm of the material and the physical.
The latter claim is not very well worded and would seem to be very much misguided nonsense based on thinking that English is a great language in which to understand quantum physics.
As I said, trying to distract the topic away from the questions and down roads of semantics is not going to impress anyone. Whatever you want to call whatever - can you please give "a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate. ", which doesn't involve butchering the current function of science...ie., can you show that "that ID will not kill science"? The OP is awaiting anybody who wants to skip past semantics and get on with the pragmatics.
Hope that helps clarify things a little.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 3:08 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Agobot, posted 01-29-2009 4:18 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024