Coincidence or Guardian Angel?
When you don't write what you mean, there isn't anything to follow. "Personal beliefs can conflict with doing science" isn't even close to "religion and science are mutually exclusive".
Nobody can "follow" the former by you writing the latter.
Nobody can "follow" the former by you writing the latter.
lol @ "According to you, these people do not exist "... Yes, they're doing science, in the loosest possible use of the term. ID 'scientists' are doing science too... heck they're calling themselves scientists, and they have theories, so they must be scientists right?
You have a poor grasp of the scientific approaches you criticize. They don't tear each-other down, they complement each-other. If a case-study finds itself in conflict with empirical studies, it will usually merely conclude that further research is warranted. This might kick off a new empirical study to look at the issue more closely, and so the cycle spins.
You seem to imagine some sort of big paradigm-war. "If isn't empirical, then it must contradict empirical science!" and "If a scientist does a non-empirical study, he is protesting empirical science!". This is pretty far from the reality of things. In fact most researchers I have met (all them as far as I can recall) who do qualitative approaches are also empirical scientists. But hey... what do they know?
Its a perfectly fine example of being able to believe in god and also believing that electricity is due to the transfer or flow of electrons. You can believe that electriciy is due to the tranfer or flow of electrons without asking "is god doing it"?
Science cant answer the fundamental "why", either. It can say electricity is electrons moving, then it can say they are moving because of electric charge, then they can say things have electric charge because sub atomic particles have electric charge, then they can say that sub atomic particles have electric charge because quarks have different properties. But they cant say why quarks have different properties ( or if they can, it just pushes the question one level deeper, to where they cant answer why)
Science cant answer the fundamental "why", either. It can say electricity is electrons moving, then it can say they are moving because of electric charge, then they can say things have electric charge because sub atomic particles have electric charge, then they can say that sub atomic particles have electric charge because quarks have different properties. But they cant say why quarks have different properties ( or if they can, it just pushes the question one level deeper, to where they cant answer why)
They don't need to, they know that's the truth, and anything they find that contradicts that truth can't be true.
Example: "religion and science"
So, if I do a qualitative research interview then I'm suddenly the equivalent of a an ID proselytizer who contradict entire fields of empirical science?
You have a poor grasp of the scientific approaches you criticize. They don't tear each-other down, they complement each-other. If a case-study finds itself in conflict with empirical studies, it will usually merely conclude that further research is warranted. This might kick off a new empirical study to look at the issue more closely, and so the cycle spins.
You have a poor grasp of the scientific approaches you criticize. They don't tear each-other down, they complement each-other. If a case-study finds itself in conflict with empirical studies, it will usually merely conclude that further research is warranted. This might kick off a new empirical study to look at the issue more closely, and so the cycle spins.
You seem to imagine some sort of big paradigm-war. "If isn't empirical, then it must contradict empirical science!" and "If a scientist does a non-empirical study, he is protesting empirical science!". This is pretty far from the reality of things. In fact most researchers I have met (all them as far as I can recall) who do qualitative approaches are also empirical scientists. But hey... what do they know?
I think we don't mean the same thing by "methodological naturalism." As I use it, methodological naturalism is contrasted with ontological naturalism. Ontological naturalism says that the natural universe is all that exists. Methodological naturalism doesn't say that the natural universe is all that exists, but that the natural world is all that we can show to exist. Since you can't valid derive ontology from epistemology, the elision you are using between these two is incorrect.
Can you link or quote some definition of MN? I subscribe to the concept described in the quote below and I find examples like this everywhere I look when I research what MN is.
In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience).... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: "You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable." This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.
Yes, the version used by the majority of scientists rules it out. So we're not in agreement at all.
I haven't contradicted myself at all, there has simply been a misunderstanding by you. I've been 100% clear since long before I started this thread on the difference between PN and MN, do you imagine that this is the first time I've ever discussed this with anyone? There is zero chance that I would make such a basic error. You are mistaken.
Can you link or quote some definition of MN? I subscribe to the concept described in the quote below and I find examples like this everywhere I look when I research what MN is.
Source (but there are numerous I could have used.
Source (but there are numerous I could have used.
I conclude that the relationship between methodological and philosophical naturalism, while not one of logical entailment, is the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion ...
Also, it's odd to cite an article that has a definition of both methodological and philosophical naturalism (under the section called "Definition of Naturalism"), but fail to actually point to it when asking for a definition:
First, [methodological] naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible....
There is a second meaning of naturalism [philosophical naturalism], which is as a generalized description of the universe. According to the naturalists, nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, i.e., by mass and energy and physical-chemical properties as encountered in diverse contexts of inquiry. This is a non-reductive naturalism, for although nature is physical-chemical at root, we need to deal with natural processes on various levels of observation and complexity: electrons and molecules, cells and organisms, flowers and trees, psychological cognition and perception, social institutions, and culture
There is a second meaning of naturalism [philosophical naturalism], which is as a generalized description of the universe. According to the naturalists, nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, i.e., by mass and energy and physical-chemical properties as encountered in diverse contexts of inquiry. This is a non-reductive naturalism, for although nature is physical-chemical at root, we need to deal with natural processes on various levels of observation and complexity: electrons and molecules, cells and organisms, flowers and trees, psychological cognition and perception, social institutions, and culture
Yes, the version used by the majority of scientists rules it out. So we're not in agreement at all.
You also need to be much better at parsing clearly between intellectual constructs (it is logically impossible for the supernatural to exist) and methodological constructs (supernatural explanations are impressible). Because you've dug yourself in so deeply in the other thread, you've merged the two and I'm doubtful you'll ever get them separated again.
Gee... I wonder what it must be like to have a discussion with one of *those* people...
How are we to guess that when you say "religion and science are mutually exclusive", what you actually mean to say is "certain religious beliefs might be a hindrance to some forms of scientific work" (or some such).
And what I really don't get: How can this possibly be our fault "not following you" (paraphrased)?
Yes, of course. If you boil some metaphysical claim down to something you take for granted in an applied method, then your work with that method will tend to coincide with said metaphysical claims.
But saying it somehow justifies said claim is like taking a rubber stamp shaped like a rabbit, stamping some rabbits and saying "it seems like using ink tends to create rabbit shapes".
I have to admit a bit of negative presuppositions, but it was a secular humanist academic journal. I'm not exactly sure how reputable the journal was, even though it was labeled as "peer-reviewed."
I contrasted two views with a clear difference: the ontological naturalist claims that the natural universe is all that exists. The methodological naturalist claims that the natural world is the only thing that can be investigated by science. One is a claim about ultimate reality. The other is a claim about the limitations of science.
Can you link or quote some definition of MN? I subscribe to the concept described in the quote below and I find examples like this everywhere I look when I research what MN is.
Source (but there are numerous I could have used.
Source (but there are numerous I could have used.
Barbara Forrest:
Strahler ventures onto the turf of philosophical naturalism when he points out how supernaturalism's lack of methodology renders it metaphysically sterile, in effect pointing out the inseparable connection between epistemology and metaphysics:
Strahler ventures onto the turf of philosophical naturalism when he points out how supernaturalism's lack of methodology renders it metaphysically sterile, in effect pointing out the inseparable connection between epistemology and metaphysics:
As for my own definition of methodological naturalism, I don't mind using the one from Paul Kurtz in the source you quote here:
Paul Kurtz:
First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible....
First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible....
In general I would say there are two main claims associated with methodological naturalism. First, taken as a negative claim, it says proper scientific theories and experiments are limited to claims about the natural (as opposed to the supernatural) world. Second, taken as a positive claim, it says that philosophical topics (i.e. epistemology, morality, ontology, etc) should be investigated by using the scientific method. I take it that the first of these claims is the relevant one for your purposes (the second claim isn't implicated by scientific practice at all).
What? How can falsifiability not be useful? Or a theory being internally and externally consistent? Or any of the other criteria I've listed? They're all doing something extremely useful. Without them, "literally anything which is logically possible can become an actuality". If you introduce supernatural explanations into science, you destroy it's explanatory force.
No, I don't think they can be falsified. How would you falsify either of your examples? Although perhaps we should first agree on whether or not they qualify as 'supernatural'. ESP could well have a natural explanation, as could Astrology. Why do you consider them to be supernatural?
Yes, the version used by the majority of scientists rules it out. So we're not in agreement at all.
I contrasted two views with a clear difference: the ontological naturalist claims that the natural universe is all that exists. The methodological naturalist claims that the natural world is the only thing that can be investigated by science. One is a claim about ultimate reality. The other is a claim about the limitations of science.
First, you are misquoting the Forrest article. The part you quote is not a definition of methodological naturalism. Forrest says this about it:
Notice that she explicitly that Strahler is talking about philosophical naturalism in that quote, not methodological naturalism. Strahler also asserts a very tight connection between these two naturalist claims, which Forrest challenges (as would most naturalists I know, including myself).
As for my own definition of methodological naturalism, I don't mind using the one from Paul Kurtz in the source you quote here:
Notice that this is a principle about how science is done, not a claim about reality (that is made in the second thesis in the essay, as what Forrest refers to as "philosophical naturalism."
I don't disagree with anything you're saying here and I do understand the difference. On the one hand we have a philosophy that rules out the existence of the supernatural, including a supernatural god, and on the other we have a methodology that operates on the assumption of there being nothing supernatural, but without making a claim about it either way. I've understood that since long before I started the conversation with TD.
From a practical PoV, knowledge gained using MN by a theist or anyone who holds supernatural beliefs, can still be used on a day to day basis, to drive a car, or take medicine, they can understand the nature of sub-atomic particles or microbes without having to abandon god, but... they're using a paradigm that they actually think is wrong. Any explanation derived from it cannot be considered by them to be anything but incomplete and 'divine intervention' is never considered as an answer when it must be.
At best, the application of MN pushes god back to the role of a creator who set everything in motion but no longer intervenes, while we try to figure out how everything works. At worst, he is completely ruled out as an explanation for anything, i.e. I'm going to try to understand everything as if god doesn't exist.... How can a theist accept that? It's mutually exclusive with their beliefs.
In general I would say there are two main claims associated with methodological naturalism. First, taken as a negative claim, it says proper scientific theories and experiments are limited to claims about the natural (as opposed to the supernatural) world. Second, taken as a positive claim, it says that philosophical topics (i.e. epistemology, morality, ontology, etc) should be investigated by using the scientific method. I take it that the first of these claims is the relevant one for your purposes (the second claim isn't implicated by scientific practice at all).
Internal and external consistency
Falsifiable
Testable
Repeatable
Useful (in that it explains what we observe)
Predictive
Parsimonious
Corrective
Substantiated by evidence.
How are we to guess that when you say "religion and science are mutually exclusive", what you actually mean to say is "certain religious beliefs might be a hindrance to some forms of scientific work" (or some such).
And what I really don't get: How can this possibly be our fault "not following you" (paraphrased)?
And what I really don't get: How can this possibly be our fault "not following you" (paraphrased)?
If you believe in god, then a paradigm that acquires knowledge using the assumption that there is no god is incorrect. It cannot be considered to be correct by you unless you abandon your belief that there is a god. Mutually exclusive.
Edit: You do ALL of these experiments with an assumption that you KNOW is wrong, and you still expect to get something sensible out of it? I can't believe anyone would be so absurd as to think that such a paradigm is possible! They build their whole experiment around a false assumption... what are these scientists thinking??
wasn't Isaac Newton a religious believer?
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:
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:
You've quoted me out of context there, I said that "gravity is something god could turn off if he wanted to" which only applies of course if you believe in god. So yes, I agree that the scientist working from a version of MN that doesn't include the supernatural can't say for sure that the theory of gravity can't be proved wrong at any moment, in fact that's a necessary criteria for it to be considered a scientific theory, but what they will never do is assume that gravity is actually something that god is doing and might decide not to do at any moment.... they can't.
I can't explain how individuals reconcile their personal supernatural belief systems, which must inform what they think they 'know', with a system for the acquisition and understanding of knowledge that assumes that there is no supernatural..... They can see how useless the supernatural is as an explanation for anything, but at the same time they know it's real.. But you can't know two contradictory truths. It's like trying to explain the physics of the solar system whilst trying to pretend that the earth is the only planet. I know that's not true, so I know there are other forces in play that aren't being considered in that limited paradigm. I could not use it.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying here and I do understand the difference. On the one hand we have a philosophy that rules out the existence of the supernatural, including a supernatural god, and on the other we have a methodology that operates on the assumption of there being nothing supernatural, but without making a claim about it either way. I've understood that since long before I started the conversation with TD.
From a practical PoV, knowledge gained using MN by a theist or anyone who holds supernatural beliefs, can still be used on a day to day basis, to drive a car, or take medicine, they can understand the nature of sub-atomic particles or microbes without having to abandon god, but... they're using a paradigm that they actually think is wrong. Any explanation derived from it cannot be considered by them to be anything but incomplete and 'divine intervention' is never considered as an answer when it must be.
At best, the application of MN pushes god back to the role of a creator who set everything in motion but no longer intervenes, while we try to figure out how everything works. At worst, he is completely ruled out as an explanation for anything, i.e. I'm going to try to understand everything as if god doesn't exist.... How can a theist accept that? It's mutually exclusive with their beliefs.
From a practical PoV, knowledge gained using MN by a theist or anyone who holds supernatural beliefs, can still be used on a day to day basis, to drive a car, or take medicine, they can understand the nature of sub-atomic particles or microbes without having to abandon god, but... they're using a paradigm that they actually think is wrong. Any explanation derived from it cannot be considered by them to be anything but incomplete and 'divine intervention' is never considered as an answer when it must be.
At best, the application of MN pushes god back to the role of a creator who set everything in motion but no longer intervenes, while we try to figure out how everything works. At worst, he is completely ruled out as an explanation for anything, i.e. I'm going to try to understand everything as if god doesn't exist.... How can a theist accept that? It's mutually exclusive with their beliefs.
Where I think you're going wrong is that you think methodological naturalism means that scientists are supposed to assume that there is no supernatural when doing science, when it actually just says that science can't make hypotheses about the supernatural. Methodological naturalism has zero implications for the actual beliefs or assumptions of scientists about the supernatural. This is why your claim that it is mutually exclusive with theism is obviously false.
Terms change and what 'science' meant historically no longer applies imo, they were doing science as they understood it at the time, but I would say that science has improved, focussed and evolved and most scientists are no longer trying to shoehorn their supernatural beliefs into a scientific framework. Perhaps this explains why the majority of scientists are non-theist. In the USA where 83% of the public believe in god, only 33% of scientists do. I don't believe that's a coincidence.
Not-natural, i.e. not detectable with the senses, not part of the physical, material universe. Not empirical.
Let me ask you, which of these do you think should not have to apply to a hypothesis that seeks to be considered as a "reliable account of the real world." (i.e. a scientific 'theory')?
Internal and external consistency
Falsifiable
Testable
Repeatable
Useful (in that it explains what we observe)
Predictive
Parsimonious
Corrective
Substantiated by evidence.
Internal and external consistency
Falsifiable
Testable
Repeatable
Useful (in that it explains what we observe)
Predictive
Parsimonious
Corrective
Substantiated by evidence.
1) The scientific paradigm acquires knowledge using the assumption that there is no god.
False. If you think (1) is true, show me the important scientific papers or theories which use as an assumption: there is no god. Seriously, show me. Since this is according to you a requirement of science, this assumption should show up in every good scientific paper, so this should be very easy for you to find if your claim is correct.
You claim:
2) If you believe in god, then a paradigm that acquires knowledge using the assumption that there is no god is incorrect.
False. Here's an example. For many years, basketball fans used an all-in statistic named PER (Player Efficiency Rating) to measure how good a basketball player was. However, everyone who used it would acknowledge that it ignored certain aspects of value for basketball players, especially defensive value. In your terminology, this statistic as a global measure of player value operated on the assumption that there was no defensive value beyond a couple counting stats. Now, people didn't think that because this statistic, which was state-of-the-art for a while in measuring basketball player value, was useful in showing how good people were at basketball that therefore defense actually didn't matter. Nor did they think that using PER was incorrect just because it wasn't able to measure all aspects of player value, or that using it somehow committed them to the claim that defense doesn't matter.
In the same way, theistic scientists can think that an atheistic scientific methodology is useful for understanding the natural world without also thereby thinking (or implicitly claiming) that the natural world is all that exists, or that science, because it is incomplete or makes false assumptions, is not still valuable and useful.
Nope, methodological naturalism doesn't push the role of god back to just a First Cause. Methodological naturalism says nothing at all about the actual occurrence of miracles. Your further claim that methodological naturalism might imply that theism can't explain anything is obviously false. Methodological naturalism is a claim about how to do science, but it doesn't claim that science is the only way to understand the world. Once again, you repeat your obviously false claim that theism is mutually exclusive with methodological naturalism. You have said this over and over, but have failed to provide the so-called contradiction between these "paradigms."
You can't have two contradictory truths, god can't exist and not exist, there is either a god or there isn't, and science acquires knowledge and understanding as if there isn't a god, it seeks to explain what we observe without using god at all, so for those who are convinced that there is a god, science is at best incomplete. That is an obvious conflict, which is why we're not the only people discussing this and this 'battle' has been raging for a long time. Also, I'm reasonably sure it was you who once said that you thought that the two most common reasons for theists to abandon their faith were the problem of evil, and scientific explanations. I can't find the thread though.
Where I think you're going wrong is that you think methodological naturalism means that scientists are supposed to assume that there is no supernatural when doing science, when it actually just says that science can't make hypotheses about the supernatural. Methodological naturalism has zero implications for the actual beliefs or assumptions of scientists about the supernatural. This is why your claim that it is mutually exclusive with theism is obviously false.
Would you consider this science?
I don't feel that I got an answer wrt those criteria and if and when they come into play for you. When does an hypothesis graduate to become a theory for you? What are your criteria, if they're not the ones I listed? Why do you accept the theory of gravity but not ID, what's the difference between them?
Your claim:
1) The scientific paradigm acquires knowledge using the assumption that there is no god.
False. If you think (1) is true, show me the important scientific papers or theories which use as an assumption: there is no god. Seriously, show me. Since this is according to you a requirement of science, this assumption should show up in every good scientific paper, so this should be very easy for you to find if your claim is correct.
1) The scientific paradigm acquires knowledge using the assumption that there is no god.
False. If you think (1) is true, show me the important scientific papers or theories which use as an assumption: there is no god. Seriously, show me. Since this is according to you a requirement of science, this assumption should show up in every good scientific paper, so this should be very easy for you to find if your claim is correct.
You claim:
2) If you believe in god, then a paradigm that acquires knowledge using the assumption that there is no god is incorrect.
False. Here's an example. For many years, basketball fans used an all-in statistic named PER (Player Efficiency Rating) to measure how good a basketball player was. However, everyone who used it would acknowledge that it ignored certain aspects of value for basketball players, especially defensive value. In your terminology, this statistic as a global measure of player value operated on the assumption that there was no defensive value beyond a couple counting stats. Now, people didn't think that because this statistic, which was state-of-the-art for a while in measuring basketball player value, was useful in showing how good people were at basketball that therefore defense actually didn't matter. Nor did they think that using PER was incorrect just because it wasn't able to measure all aspects of player value, or that using it somehow committed them to the claim that defense doesn't matter.
In the same way, theistic scientists can think that an atheistic scientific methodology is useful for understanding the natural world without also thereby thinking (or implicitly claiming) that the natural world is all that exists, or that science, because it is incomplete or makes false assumptions, is not still valuable and useful.
2) If you believe in god, then a paradigm that acquires knowledge using the assumption that there is no god is incorrect.
False. Here's an example. For many years, basketball fans used an all-in statistic named PER (Player Efficiency Rating) to measure how good a basketball player was. However, everyone who used it would acknowledge that it ignored certain aspects of value for basketball players, especially defensive value. In your terminology, this statistic as a global measure of player value operated on the assumption that there was no defensive value beyond a couple counting stats. Now, people didn't think that because this statistic, which was state-of-the-art for a while in measuring basketball player value, was useful in showing how good people were at basketball that therefore defense actually didn't matter. Nor did they think that using PER was incorrect just because it wasn't able to measure all aspects of player value, or that using it somehow committed them to the claim that defense doesn't matter.
In the same way, theistic scientists can think that an atheistic scientific methodology is useful for understanding the natural world without also thereby thinking (or implicitly claiming) that the natural world is all that exists, or that science, because it is incomplete or makes false assumptions, is not still valuable and useful.
(This would be an example of where I'm often accused of moving the goalposts, changing my argument halfway through a discussion, or being downright dishonest, but what I've actually done is identified a word I've used that I think was muddying the waters, precisely because you pressed me on it, and realised that I was failing to accurately articulate my position, and I've taken that onboard and refined my argument which hasn't changed as a result, it's just one less area that can cause the discussion to get bogged down when we're not even disagreeing about that thing. Sorry.)
To frame it in a different way, "religious people can do science" contradicts the first statement, but not the second statement. This makes it obvious that they do not carry the same premise. Perhaps you meant the same thing, but you didn't say the same thing. This wouldn't be a big deal if you had just admitted your mistake and moved on, but instead you have chosen to dig in and accuse people of "not following you".
It's difficult to show an absence of something, perhaps it would be easier if you showed me an 'important' scientific theory that includes the supernatural (or god specifically) as part of the explanation? Where in ToE, or Gravity, or Relativity, or Heliocentrism , or BBT, or the Laws of motion or Thermodynamics etc etc, is the supernatural referenced as part of the explanation?
But actual irony aside, he doesn't have to show that as he hasn't claimed that these things are part of scientific theories. OrP's word has been that science is largely agnostic about these things and therefore ignores them, which is consistent with them not being mentioned.
If you have an example, please provide it, but I've asked you for this before and you've failed to provide anything. All you need is just one important theory that includes a god element and you'll have proved me wrong, I have to wonder why you haven't simply done that....
But actual irony aside, he doesn't have to show that as he hasn't claimed that these things are part of scientific theories. OrP's word has been that science is largely agnostic about these things and therefore ignores them, which is consistent with them not being mentioned.
I'm reading a history of early Medieval Europe, it makes the point that the belief in the supernatural was just normal back then. However, it does draw a distinction between a common and general belief in the supernatural that everyone held, essentially "weird stuff happens", and a 'reasoned' belief in the supernatural, which was used to 'investigate' the world.
It makes the point that the latter was very concerned with understanding the natural world on its own terms, as it wanted to make sure that miracles were actually miracles. The basic idea being that, unless you knew what should happen 'naturally' then there was no way to know if what actually happened was indeed a miracle - it might just be ignorance tricking people into seeing perfectly mundane phenomena as miracles.
At the time what anyone was doing can't really be called Science, and the practice of identifying miracles was as much a political and social activity as a 'reasonable' one, but the point is a fairly simple one. If you believe in the supernatural as a distinct category then you need to be interested in the natural qua natural, at least in so far as needing to differentiate the two.
So, far from being some sort of threat to it, a belief in the supernatural can imply an investigation of the natural in only natural terms.
It makes the point that the latter was very concerned with understanding the natural world on its own terms, as it wanted to make sure that miracles were actually miracles. The basic idea being that, unless you knew what should happen 'naturally' then there was no way to know if what actually happened was indeed a miracle - it might just be ignorance tricking people into seeing perfectly mundane phenomena as miracles.
At the time what anyone was doing can't really be called Science, and the practice of identifying miracles was as much a political and social activity as a 'reasonable' one, but the point is a fairly simple one. If you believe in the supernatural as a distinct category then you need to be interested in the natural qua natural, at least in so far as needing to differentiate the two.
So, far from being some sort of threat to it, a belief in the supernatural can imply an investigation of the natural in only natural terms.
I'm reading a history of early Medieval Europe, it makes the point that the belief in the supernatural was just normal back then. However, it does draw a distinction between a common and general belief in the supernatural that everyone held, essentially "weird stuff happens", and a 'reasoned' belief in the supernatural, which was used to 'investigate' the world.
It makes the point that the latter was very concerned with understanding the natural world on its own terms, as it wanted to make sure that miracles were actually miracles. The basic idea being that, unless you knew what should happen 'naturally' then there was no way to know if what actually happened was indeed a miracle - it might just be ignorance tricking people into seeing perfectly mundane phenomena as miracles.
At the time what anyone was doing can't really be called Science, and the practice of identifying miracles was as much a political and social activity as a 'reasonable' one, but the point is a fairly simple one. If you believe in the supernatural as a distinct category then you need to be interested in the natural qua natural, at least in so far as needing to differentiate the two.
So, far from being some sort of threat to it, a belief in the supernatural can imply an investigation of the natural in only natural terms.
It makes the point that the latter was very concerned with understanding the natural world on its own terms, as it wanted to make sure that miracles were actually miracles. The basic idea being that, unless you knew what should happen 'naturally' then there was no way to know if what actually happened was indeed a miracle - it might just be ignorance tricking people into seeing perfectly mundane phenomena as miracles.
At the time what anyone was doing can't really be called Science, and the practice of identifying miracles was as much a political and social activity as a 'reasonable' one, but the point is a fairly simple one. If you believe in the supernatural as a distinct category then you need to be interested in the natural qua natural, at least in so far as needing to differentiate the two.
So, far from being some sort of threat to it, a belief in the supernatural can imply an investigation of the natural in only natural terms.
It does hinge on "reasonable belief" in the supernatural, however. Meaning that you accept evidence and are willing to challenge your beliefs if and when necessary.
Then again I doubt that well-renowned religious scientists hold convictions that get in the way of their scientific inquiries. But I know from experience that some religious beliefs do get in the way of ever attaining such positions. It's noticeable in medicine in home town for example; the study tends to attracts a lot of Christians because of the "helping others" perspective. The majority of them would of course have no issue with research positions or scientific discovery, but the minority of creationists most likely would stumble into big challenges to their belief system (and indeed, the number of such creationists in that med-school were actually quite noticeable according to former colleagues).
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE