Coincidence or Guardian Angel?
When a deity IS unquestionably involved, do you agree that science and religion are mutually exclusive paradigms?
As far as I am aware, our current scientific models don't give us any good reason to believe that a God exists. Furthermore, most of the things people used to believe needed the existence of a deity to explain have either been explained in natural terms, we have alternative natural explanations for, or we don't need an explanation for at all. However, barring a few philosophical arguments like the problem of evil, I am not aware of any scientific evidence that demonstrates that a God doesn't exist.
Presumably you are adopting a further claim - don't believe in things for which there is no scientific evidence. Fair enough, but this rule is not part of science itself, but rather a controversial philosophical claim.
I would describe a paradigm as an underlying idea, theory, or model, that determines what questions are relevant and what answers are meaningful. If your paradigm is that there is a universe creating god that is non-physical, then that's going to conflict with a paradigm that rules out such a possibility, such as science based on the assumption of philosophical naturalism.
Also, as a point of reference, it does not appear that MB has moved from his previous conception of science:
I don't agree, because this would imply that there could actually be other explanations for things and science has just chosen not to consider them. It would be biased and incomplete. In that case, how could we ever have any confidence in scientific explanations? Gravity has been explained using entirely natural concepts (i.e. Physical, non-supernatural) but how do you agree with, or accept that explanation if you also believe in the supernatural and think that science simply didn't consider a supernatural explanation for Gravity?
Science works precisely because it assumes that the Natural world is all that there is.
Science works precisely because it assumes that the Natural world is all that there is.
However, he has also demonstrated that his sense of "natural" is quite broken, as evidenced by his attempt to dissect the following thought experiment:
The example that I've used many times in this forum is the following "floating ball" example. Since we're on a particular area of it, I'll modify it slightly.
Let's say for a moment that we have a ball and that God (or a ghost or whatever) causes the ball to levitate and then fall. He does this in front of the entire world so that everyone can see it. And that this is the only time in history that this happens. Would you say that this is a natural event or a supernatural event? Under your definition, since we detected it, it must be natural. But now try to fit that into your conception of what it means to be supernatural and see what you come up with.
Edit: "Detected, therefore natural" is a pretty useless way of reading into the physical universe.
Let's say for a moment that we have a ball and that God (or a ghost or whatever) causes the ball to levitate and then fall. He does this in front of the entire world so that everyone can see it. And that this is the only time in history that this happens. Would you say that this is a natural event or a supernatural event? Under your definition, since we detected it, it must be natural. But now try to fit that into your conception of what it means to be supernatural and see what you come up with.
Edit: "Detected, therefore natural" is a pretty useless way of reading into the physical universe.
This is not a problem at all. It would prove that god is not the divine, supernatural, immaterial, non-physical being described in the bible or Qur'an or wherever, that in fact god has a natural explanation. In finally proving his existence, he would simultaneously disprove his divine nature. If there's no such thing as the supernatural, then supernatural isn't the explanation (because supernatural explanations are useless). That's how the paradigm works.
No they aren't, but are you sure those electrons are obeying the laws of physics or is god giving them a little push? Or maybe it's ghosts. Or chi, or some supernatural energy field we can't detect yet.
I'll be explicit about my view on this: I don't think that a belief in God and being a competent practicing scientist are mutually exclusive. That is obviously true based on simple observation of Christian scientists. I also don't think a belief in God and accepting a scientific methodology as the best way to understand the world are mutually exclusive.
They can call it science, but it's not far removed from witch doctoring, it simply borrows some methodology from naturalistic science and has a hypothesis (god) that they can never contradict or disprove. It's not objective.
As far as I am aware, our current scientific models don't give us any good reason to believe that a God exists. Furthermore, most of the things people used to believe needed the existence of a deity to explain have either been explained in natural terms, we have alternative natural explanations for, or we don't need an explanation for at all. However, barring a few philosophical arguments like the problem of evil, I am not aware of any scientific evidence that demonstrates that a God doesn't exist.
Presumably you are adopting a further claim - don't believe in things for which there is no scientific evidence. Fair enough, but this rule is not part of science itself, but rather a controversial philosophical claim.
I'm not sure what this means.
I'm not sure why you're saying this, isn't it obvious that science can't disprove god?
Originally Posted by see a couple posts ago
It would prove that god is not the divine, supernatural, immaterial, non-physical being described in the bible or Qur'an or wherever, that in fact god has a natural explanation. In finally proving his existence, he would simultaneously disprove his divine nature. If there's no such thing as the supernatural, then supernatural isn't the explanation (because supernatural explanations are useless). That's how the paradigm works.
I'm not sure what this means.
I wouldn't describe is as a 'bad' objection so much as one that we could find semantic fault with if we chose to be that picky. I think that otherwise, we all know what we mean when we use the word 'religious', that theism and god beliefs are being referred to.
When a deity IS unquestionably involved, do you agree that science and religion are mutually exclusive paradigms?
When a deity IS unquestionably involved, do you agree that science and religion are mutually exclusive paradigms?
I wouldn't call religion and science "paradigms". Both contain many different paradigms.
But do I think science and a belief in god(s) is mutually exclusive? No, not by any means. George Lemaître, for example, was one of the 20th century's greatest physicists and he was also a catholic priest. You might know a little model he came up with, called the big bang theory.
I don't consider what they do to be scientific (in the sense that they can never derive a truly scientific 'theory' from it) because whilst they might be able to produce practically useful results, they cannot rely on the ideas or concepts that support those results since they won't rule out the possibility that the cause is supernatural. A christian scientist can't rule out that gravity isn't simply a magic property that god gave to matter and actually has no explanation within the naturalistic laws of physics. To that scientist, gravity is something god could turn off if he wanted to, so he can't make predictions about it, it's not useful, it's certainly not falsifiable, it's not testable etc etc etc....
They can call it science, but it's not far removed from witch doctoring, it simply borrows some methodology from naturalistic science and has a hypothesis (god) that they can never contradict or disprove. It's not objective.
They can call it science, but it's not far removed from witch doctoring, it simply borrows some methodology from naturalistic science and has a hypothesis (god) that they can never contradict or disprove. It's not objective.
I'm curious, how do you justify or decide on the criteria you use for deciding what "science" is?
I'm not sure why you're saying this, isn't it obvious that science can't disprove god?
Actually I'm not making this claim. I don't think science can claim objective truths nor do I think it's the only paradigm that can provide answers, I simply think that the scientific paradigm and the religious paradigm are mutually exclusive. That's my only point here.
I'm not sure what this means.
I don't consider what they do to be scientific (in the sense that they can never derive a truly scientific 'theory' from it) because whilst they might be able to produce practically useful results, they cannot rely on the ideas or concepts that support those results since they won't rule out the possibility that the cause is supernatural. A christian scientist can't rule out that gravity isn't simply a magic property that god gave to matter and actually has no explanation within the naturalistic laws of physics. To that scientist, gravity is something god could turn off if he wanted to, so he can't make predictions about it, it's not useful, it's certainly not falsifiable, it's not testable etc etc etc....
Didn't Isaac Newton develop a "truly scientific 'theory'" regarding gravity?
Thus, history demonstrates that religious scientists are able to develop properly scientific theories.
Non-religious scientists cannot rule out that gravity "could turn off" either. It's not possible to know gravity will still hold at e.g. (current time of universe) + 24 hours. This video is directly on point:
when it comes down to it "obeying the laws of physics" and "god giving them a little push" are essentially the same. "obeying the laws of physics" tells us nothing, gives us no information
The question is not whether they are scientific, but whether they are mutually exclusive with science.
A non-Christian (or non-theistic) scientist also can't rule out that gravity isn't simply a magic property, so where's the difference? It is true that atheistic scientists usually don't believe that gravity is simply a magic property, but then neither do Christian scientists.
A non-Christian (or non-theistic) scientist also can't rule out that gravity isn't simply a magic property, so where's the difference? It is true that atheistic scientists usually don't believe that gravity is simply a magic property, but then neither do Christian scientists.
Yes, it is obvious, which is why I don't understand your claim that believing in god is mutually exclusive with science. Science can't prove the objective truth or existence of morality either (so far), but I wouldn't claim that believing in objective morality is mutually exclusive with science, or that scientists who believe in moral truths are closely related to witch doctors.
By "mutually exclusive" you mean that you can accept one or the other, but not both, yes? If so, you need to be more specific about the contradiction. So far, you've claimed that the religious paradigm commits people to accepting certain claims about reality that are not proven by science to be true (or false). I think you're wrong that the religious paradigm commits people to these beliefs, but laying that aside, it is not part of the scientific paradigm that you must only accept claims that are proven by science. This extends to supernatural as well as natural claims. Thus, it would be compatible with religious paradigms which accept these other claims.
I mean that in my view science as a social project (i.e. as actually practiced) or as an intellectual project (i.e. the intellectual underpinnings to science) doesn't require or assume philosophical naturalism.
obeying the laws of physics? We came to an understanding of the laws of physics because we observed the behaviour of electrons and recognised patterns and made hypotheses. It is possible to do this, and believe in god at the same time. you could even believe that "god is giving them a little push", and still come up with the patterns and hypotheses.
when it comes down to it "obeying the laws of physics" and "god giving them a little push" are essentially the same. "obeying the laws of physics" tells us nothing, gives us no information
when it comes down to it "obeying the laws of physics" and "god giving them a little push" are essentially the same. "obeying the laws of physics" tells us nothing, gives us no information
So, by definition, the 'laws of physics' preclude there being a god. And no, he didn't create the laws of physics, they can't exist if he exists, because if he does exist, then there is more than the 'nautral' world and now those laws would be incomplete and based on a flawed understanding of reality, so they're contradictory paradigms.
While I don't agree with MB's strict limitation of science to mean only empirical Science, since I know from experience it's not correct in practice (many scientists do work outside empirical method), I do partially agree here.
Empirical science do operate under the assumption that the universe is governed by physical laws. These laws are seen as fact and as applying to all things in the universe. You could not in empirical science say that magic pushes electrons around, only that electrons are being pushed around.
Why?
Because assuming physical laws does not imply an ontological commitment to these laws, meaning that you aren't necessarily saying that this is how the universe is. You're saying that this is how it appears to be, empiricism is not realism! That's a very important distinction. It's basically the reason why saying "electrons are being moved by magic" is not equivalent to saying "electrons move due to physical laws". Note that I'm assuming here that the term "magic" conveys what we typically take the term to mean (some type of supernatural influence), not that it is an empty container.
All that said, I think MB needs to realize that once you start to argue for ontological naturalism, this all goes poof however. At that point Neel's objection is correct.
Empirical science do operate under the assumption that the universe is governed by physical laws. These laws are seen as fact and as applying to all things in the universe. You could not in empirical science say that magic pushes electrons around, only that electrons are being pushed around.
Why?
Because assuming physical laws does not imply an ontological commitment to these laws, meaning that you aren't necessarily saying that this is how the universe is. You're saying that this is how it appears to be, empiricism is not realism! That's a very important distinction. It's basically the reason why saying "electrons are being moved by magic" is not equivalent to saying "electrons move due to physical laws". Note that I'm assuming here that the term "magic" conveys what we typically take the term to mean (some type of supernatural influence), not that it is an empty container.
All that said, I think MB needs to realize that once you start to argue for ontological naturalism, this all goes poof however. At that point Neel's objection is correct.
Physics is the study of the 'material', that which can be detected with the senses, and god, by defition is non-material.
I won't repeat all of the objections again about how you're trying to define "God" with respect to how scientific inquiry may work. You're just very wrong about it.
So, by definition, the 'laws of physics' preclude there being a god.
And no, he didn't create the laws of physics, they can't exist if he exists, because if he does exist, then there is more than the 'nautral' world and now those laws would be incomplete and based on a flawed understanding of reality, so they're contradictory paradigms.
The best analogy for this is to think of computer science and computer programming. We can write programs to create worlds in games like "World of Warcraft" or "Breath of the Wild." Within each game, there are rules that govern how the game operates. However, it is possible that while the game is running that various parameters are changed to impact the outcome. These are indeed a violation of the programming. It doesn't mean that the rules don't exist. It just means that they are not immutable.
I've seen that they are what is applied while I've read up on this over time. Whenever I've looked for defitions of what a scientific theory is, I've always come across concepts like Observable, Testable, Predicitve, Repeatable, Falsifiable (As well as there being evidence to substantiate a theory), Internal and External consistency, Useful, and of course 'Natural', that are considered to be criteria that must be met for the theory to be considered more than just an idea but an accepted explanation. It's not simply evidence that qualifies something as a theory.
My impression (it's difficult to support with numbers) is that the vast majority of scientists adhere to some form of philosophical naturalism and the number rises the more the particular field of science is one that tends to contradict religious claims, so the highest number of atheist scientists is found in Physics, for example. Also, the higher the level of the scientist, the more likely they are to be atheist. I think that this is because they struggle to reconcile the two conflicting paradigms and have to abandon one.
Intellectually, the healthier way to approach this is to begin with listening to what scientists say about science. Even if your explanation were somehow correct at all levels, it would still fail to explain why there are still as many religious scientists as there are. Basically, it would be that only a select few people are actually smart enough to do this science thing and the rest of them are just doing witchcraft.
You stil don't get my argument do you.
Empirical science do operate under the assumption that the universe is governed by physical laws. These laws are seen as fact and as applying to all things in the universe. You could not in empirical science say that magic pushes electrons around, only that electrons are being pushed around.
Why?
Because assuming physical laws does not imply an ontological commitment to these laws, meaning that you aren't necessarily saying that this is how the universe is. You're saying that this is how it appears to be, empiricism is not realism! That's a very important distinction. It's basically the reason why saying "electrons are being moved by magic" is not equivalent to saying "electrons move due to physical laws". Note that I'm assuming here that the term "magic" conveys what we typically take the term to mean (some type of supernatural influence), not that it is an empty container.
All that said, I think MB needs to realize that once you start to argue for ontological naturalism, this all goes poof however. At that point Neel's objection is correct.
Why?
Because assuming physical laws does not imply an ontological commitment to these laws, meaning that you aren't necessarily saying that this is how the universe is. You're saying that this is how it appears to be, empiricism is not realism! That's a very important distinction. It's basically the reason why saying "electrons are being moved by magic" is not equivalent to saying "electrons move due to physical laws". Note that I'm assuming here that the term "magic" conveys what we typically take the term to mean (some type of supernatural influence), not that it is an empty container.
All that said, I think MB needs to realize that once you start to argue for ontological naturalism, this all goes poof however. At that point Neel's objection is correct.
Why do some theists try so hard to redefine methdological naturalism to be more about a natural methodology than an application of a naturalistic philosophy? Once again, they're trying to retain and shoehorn in their own beliefs, beliefs that can't be proven to be true, against a philosophy and method that has been devastatingly effective in providing explanations and has replaced many of theirs.
It's my strong opinon that there is an ongoing battle going on between these two paradigms and that eventually, given it's already monumental successes, methodological naturalism (purely as an application of philosophical naturalism) will 'win' out and become the only method by which we can claim knowledge that we term 'scientific' and the two paradigms will be openly, mutually exclusive. No further efforts will be made to subsume it into a more generous paradigm that allows for the supernatural to exist.
Has methodological naturalism been so successful in providing explanations that correlate so well to what we observe that the non-physicalists have had no choice but to try to accomodate it? To try to own it?
There's also the strange philosophical baggage that you have that nobody else seems to have, which is that you somehow think that believing in the supernatural means that absolutely nothing can be learned by studying the physical world.
Why do some theists try so hard to redefine methdological naturalism to be more about a natural methodology than an application of a naturalistic philosophy?
There's very little redefining of methodological naturalism coming from this end of the world. It's mostly you.
It's my strong opinon that there is an ongoing battle going on between these two paradigms and that eventually, given it's already monumental successes, methodological naturalism will 'win' out and become the only method by which we can claim knowledge that we term 'scientific' and the two paradigms will be openly, mutually exclusive. No fiurther efforts will be made to subsume it into a more generous paradigm that allows for the supernatural to exist.
Again, laws of physics dont exist as a thing, or a force, or a phenomena or whatever, for matter to follow. What we call laws are simply patterns we have observed.
( no, this is not my usual schtick of "nothing exists" , if anyone is thinking of bringing that up).
and god, by defition is non-material. He is spirit (it says this in the bible), and so cannot be detected by any method aplied by science, so science, in applying philosophical naturalism simply rules out the possiblity of the supernatural and will not accept supernatural explanations.
So, by definition, the 'laws of physics' preclude there being a god. And no, he didn't create the laws of physics, they can't exist if he exists, because if he does exist, then there is more than the 'nautral' world and now those laws would be incomplete and based on a flawed understanding of reality, so they're contradictory paradigms.
So, by definition, the 'laws of physics' preclude there being a god. And no, he didn't create the laws of physics, they can't exist if he exists, because if he does exist, then there is more than the 'nautral' world and now those laws would be incomplete and based on a flawed understanding of reality, so they're contradictory paradigms.
1) the laws of physics exist ( which I dispute, depending on your definition of law)
2) the laws of physics only speak of the natural world
3) if the supernatural world exists, the laws of physics are incomplete, because they wouldnt define the supernatural world(??? doesnt follow as far as I can see, especially as you have specifically stated (2))
therefore
C) the supernatural world(god) cant exist if the laws of physics exist.
Theres something very dodgy going on here, but I cant work out what.
Would it be possible for a god to set up a universe such that it behaved exactly as ours does? If so, would it be possible for scientists to deduce the laws of physics in that universe?
I've seen that they are what is applied while I've read up on this over time. Whenever I've looked for defitions of what a scientific theory is, I've always come across concepts like Observable, Testable, Predicitve, Repeatable, Falsifiable (As well as there being evidence to substantiate a theory), Internal and External consistency, Useful, and of course 'Natural', that are considered to be criteria that must be met for the theory to be considered more than just an idea but an accepted explanation. It's not simply evidence that qualifies something as a theory.
How can a paradigm that won't accept the existence of the supernatural be anything other than mutually exclusive to a paradigm that assumes the existence of the supernatural (god)? If you applied the idea of natural and non-natural to morality, you would have a similar situation where now objective morality and the existence of god are mutually incompatible, but that hasn't been done.
1) The scientific paradigm says that there is no supernatural objects or causation.
2) The theistic paradigm says that there is supernatural objects or causation.
These claims are mutually exclusive. However, (1) is false, as you yourself acknowledged when you said that science doesn't disprove the existence of God. If it doesn't disprove God, then it doesn't say that God doesn't exist.
My impression (it's difficult to support with numbers) is that the vast majority of scientists adhere to some form of philosophical naturalism and the number rises the more the particular field of science is one that tends to contradict religious claims, so the highest number of atheist scientists is found in Physics, for example. Also, the higher the level of the scientist, the more likely they are to be atheist. I think that this is because they struggle to reconcile the two conflicting paradigms and have to abandon one.
So I started what I'd hoped would be a fun thread but it turns out that I happened to pick a forum where only one person mentioned an interesting coincidence and I'd bet good money that there'd be plenty if I'd only picked a different forum out of all of these. What a coincidence!
Tell me there is no God.
Tell me there is no God.
This doesnt hold together logically, but I cant work out why.
1) the laws of physics exist ( which I dispute, depending on your definition of law)
2) the laws of physics only speak of the natural world
3) if the supernatural world exists, the laws of physics are incomplete, because they wouldnt define the supernatural world(??? doesnt follow as far as I can see, especially as you have specifically stated (2))
therefore
C) the supernatural world(god) cant exist if the laws of physics exist.
Theres something very dodgy going on here, but I cant work out what.
1) the laws of physics exist ( which I dispute, depending on your definition of law)
2) the laws of physics only speak of the natural world
3) if the supernatural world exists, the laws of physics are incomplete, because they wouldnt define the supernatural world(??? doesnt follow as far as I can see, especially as you have specifically stated (2))
therefore
C) the supernatural world(god) cant exist if the laws of physics exist.
Theres something very dodgy going on here, but I cant work out what.
Essentially his argument revolves around trying to force the creation of an empty category of information. If the supernatural world exists, then "science" fails in all aspects because it cannot create a full accounting of the universe. And if "science" fails in all aspects, then the "laws of physics" don't work.
But of course, there is no necessary condition that we force this into an all-or-nothing dichotomy.
I think you just picked a bad way to try to set up a "fun" thread. Your examples don't even reflect what people imagine "guardian angels" do.
'Guarding Angels' is catchy. Marketing, bro.
I'll wait 6 months and make this an OOT thread. Put this forum to shame.
Clearly.
You may want to fire your entire marketing team.
Marketing, bro.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE