|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
First, I don't have that kind of power. Nothing I say is going to have any effect whatsoever on science. ... you are campaigning to get science to distance itself from any vocabulary hinting at such. Second, science has already distanced itself from that vocabulary. I have asked repeatedly for any evidence that science uses the word "miracle". I don't think you'll find any.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
So that's essentially your whole point, then? That Percy chose the wrong word to define an unexplainable event that appeared to contradict natural and scientific laws?
Are Miracles Possible ~ Some good discussions here. My conclusion is that people---scientists included---can use whatever word they want. There is no definite rule that says otherwise.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ringo writes: You're tailoring those "needs" to your preferred definition of miracle, which is incorrect.... The point of the Miracle of the Sun is that the Catholic Church calls it a miracle while scientists do not. ... The only thing that makes an event a miracle is somebody attributing it to unnatural causes. ... Miracles are religion, not science. You're just recycling arguments you raised previously that have already been rebutted. You need responses to the rebuttals, not repeats of the original arguments. From your Message 451 to Phat:
ringo in Message 451 writes: Second, science has already distanced itself from that vocabulary. I have asked repeatedly for any evidence that science uses the word "miracle". I don't think you'll find any. Another recycled argument. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
It's important to understand that it's only "inexplicable" to the people who call it a miracle.
So that's essentially your whole point, then? That Percy chose the wrong word to define an unexplainable event that appeared to contradict natural and scientific laws? Phat writes:
Indeed. And scientists don't use the word "miracle".
My conclusion is that people---scientists included---can use whatever word they want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Your "rebuttals" have been addressed. You're just refusing to accept reality - scientists do not use the word "miracle". You refuse to discuss what (some) people actually do all "miracles".
You're just recycling arguments you raised previously that have already been rebutted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Your "rebuttals" have been addressed. You're just refusing to accept reality - scientists do not use the word "miracle". You refuse to discuss what (some) people actually do all "miracles". The paradigm of science is that all caused events have a natural cause. By definition that would mean that there are no such things as miracles. Now scientists cannot prove that there are no miracles. But science does have an impressive track record of uncovering causes so that it is not merely on faith that scientist assume that things they cannot currently understand will turn out to have a natural cause. It is not a coincidence that we don't find floating objects in a situation where the floating cannot be explained by the forces we already know to exist in nature. That's why I suggested that a couple of folks with ordinary tools and unlimited access could figure out whether a floating man was a miracle or not. By and large, the accounts we have for miracles of that type all exist in texts whose accuracy is impossible to verify. So what should we make of the word 'miracle' then? Is a destitute single mom winning the lottery a miracle? Is a computer a modern miracle of science? Is remission of cancer a miracle? Yes, those things all fit one of the dictionary definitions of the word, but none of those things are miracles in the strict sense that this discussion should be about. If I am wrong about that, let me know because then I will understand that the topic is not one I am interested in. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
The word "miracle' is used by the Catholic Church in an official capacity, attributing unusual events to a a supernatural cause. Presumably, other religious groups use the word similarly. So what should we make of the word 'miracle' then? Is a destitute single mom winning the lottery a miracle? Is a computer a modern miracle of science? Is remission of cancer a miracle? The word is also used colloquially, as in your examples. The events are certainly not "inexplicable". At best they are unexpected. Calling something a "miracle" is entirely subjective, which is why scientists don't do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
ringo writes: Calling something a "miracle" is entirely subjective, which is why scientists don't do it. Nope. If a miracle - like the ones we've posited and you've refused to discuss - happened, they would be thoroughly open to objective analysis. The reason why scientists don't use the word miracle is because they've not yet found one. But what if.....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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Since this debate/discussion is going nowhere, I gleaned similar arguments from the internet. Some of them are further food for thought:
DO MIRACLES REALLY VIOLATE THE LAWS OF SCIENCE?Dr.Timothy McGrew writes: The great skeptic David Hume presented the world with a false dilemma when he tried to pit reported miracles against the laws of nature. Science tells us what nature does when left to itself; miracles, if they occur at all, occur precisely because nature is not left to itself. Believers and skeptics agree that there is a stable causal order, a normal course of events in which virgins do not become pregnant and dead men stay dead. And precisely because they are agreed on this point, it cannot be a significant piece of evidence against the occurrence of miracles. A river must flow, as one of Hume’s contemporaries pointed out, before its stream can be diverted. Some conception of the ordinary course of nature is required for us even to make sense of the notion of a miracle, which otherwise could not be recognized for what it is. Science itself places no limits on what may happen when nature is not left to itself. It can neither demonstrate that nature is always left to itselfthat the physical universe is causally closednor legislate what might occur if it is not. Scientists may have their personal opinions on these matters; in fact, they often do, and sometimes they count on their scientific expertise to give weight to those opinions. But that involves stepping out of their own fields of specialization and into the realm of philosophy. And in that arena, one’s having a degree in zoology or microbiology does not, per se, entitle one’s opinions to any particular deference. Your argument is nothing more than an informed opinion. Granted you have framed the parameters of how science should think and of what science should or should never conclude. While acknowledging your argument, I don't find it as the final word. 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 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
If scientists analyzed it, they'd propose explanations. By definition, it would not be "inexplicable" and it wouldn't be considered a miracle.
If a miracle - like the ones we've posited and you've refused to discuss - happened, they would be thoroughly open to objective analysis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
If that isn't the way science does think, give us some examples.
Granted you have framed the parameters of how science should think and of what science should or should never conclude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Tangle writes: Ringo seems to argue that true science would never resort to using the M word. My counter-argument is that scientists speak as individuals and not as a group. Thus, some may use the M word and others would stick with currently unexplainable.... The reason why scientists don't use the word miracle is because they've not yet found one. But what if.....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 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Show us some examples.
... some may use the M word and others would stick with currently unexplainable....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
ringo writes: If scientists analyzed it, they'd propose explanations. And if they found no explanations, then what? Silence?
By definition, it would not be "inexplicable" and it wouldn't be considered a miracle. You're making the mistake of assuming that objective analysis must conclude with a natural explanation. In other words you're just doing what you've done from the start - attempt to define away a problem. Doesn't work, the flying bridge is still there hanging in the sky awaiting an explanation that can't be found in any natural process regardless of your head-in-sand approach. It's ironic that if such things ever happened it would *only* be science that could legitimately declare it a miracle.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: Ringo seems to argue that true science would never resort to using the M word. Yeh, I noticed :-)
My counter-argument is that scientists speak as individuals and not as a group. Thus, some may use the M word and others would stick with currently unexplainable.... I think we can all agree - with one pig-headed exception - that if the events we've discussed *did* happen, the overwhelming majority of human kind would call it a miracle, not just the odd scientist.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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024