Why science and religion are not compatible

[Aridas]

How do we know what can and can't be answered by science?

Isn't it better to say that as yet these questions haven't been answered, but I cannot say what the future will hold regarding science and these questions?

Conceptually. For example, science cannot be used to make value judgements like "Should I hug this person or stab them with a knife?" What it can do potentially, on the other hand, is determine why the question's being asked and what the consequences of each choice likely will be, physically, socially, mentally, etc.

 

[citizenzen]

Conceptually. For example, science cannot be used to make value judgements like "Should I hug this person or stab them with a knife?" What it can do potentially, on the other hand, is determine why the question's being asked and what the consequences of each choice likely will be, physically, socially, mentally, etc.

True. But on the other hand, that question doesn't require religion for someone to come to an answer.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Conceptually. For example, science cannot be used to make value judgements like "Should I hug this person or stab them with a knife?" What it can do potentially, on the other hand, is determine why the question's being asked and what the consequences of each choice likely will be, physically, socially, mentally, etc.

But you don't need religion to make those value judgments. Religion simply hijacked those things and claimed them as their Divine Right. Without any good reason, of course, but they were allowed to get away with it, for far too long.

 

[Aridas]

True. But on the other hand, that question doesn't require religion for someone to come to an answer.

Just to note, I said that there's no definitive method to decide such, which includes religion in the methods that don't do such, definitively. At no point would or did I claim that religion was necessary for those value judgements. I would rate religion as a relatively poor way to make value judgements, myself, though.

 

[Humes fork]

Read philosophers and theologians; add personal beliefs and insights and decide what I believe.

What makes you think theology is a real subject to start with? And philosophy not informed by science is a fool's errand.

This would be true for things in the natural (physical) world. Not for metaphysics and/or theology.

So in theology and metaphysics (highly dubious fields of study to start with), Iron Age tribes knew better than modern humans?

Science doesn't and can't know. This question is outside the realm of science. Also, the article you referenced is merely opinion, with only as much validity as any other opinion (even mine). And the opinion in the reference is contrary to many other opinions on what science is (see my previous posts). In fact, it might be interpreted as incompatible with science.

Huh? He wrote that if we look at the world through a scientific perspective, materialism is more likely than theism. Can you point out what's wrong with it, instead of invoking NOMA as the end of the matter?

Why?

Because they did. What kind of answer do you want? Religion isn't immune to that sort of questions either. If someone said that "God has a special purpose with your life", one could go on asking "Why?".

Prove it. Where's your evidence?

Boy, the lack of logic some people will go to to protect their beliefs! From your link:This is a false analogy. Life after death is outside the natural world, which is why there cannot be "controlled, experimentally verifiable information" about it. The composition of the Moon is part of the natural world and we can observe it and find "controlled, experimental[ly] verifiable information" about it.

This is just silly. Using this "reasoning," science can never draw any conclusions about anything.

I don't see any lack of logic. He is simply look at the idea of an afterlife from a scientific perspective and concludes that it is unlikely, given what we know about the universe.

He writes about it from the view of physics, but also adds that there is a biological perspective to it:

Presumably amino acids and proteins don’t have souls that persist after death. What about viruses or bacteria? Where upon the chain of evolution from our monocellular ancestors to today did organisms stop being described purely as atoms interacting through gravity and electromagnetism, and develop an immaterial immortal soul?

 

[FattyCatty]

But what makes you think that there is a supernatural realm outside of science? That is what I don't understand.

Well, it certainly makes sense to me that there would be a supernatural realm. Besides, it appeals to my sense of order. And I do like symmetry.

I think that the universe was created; that creator must have been outside time and space, outside nature, hence supernatural. Because science deals only with the natural world, the supernatural is outside the realm of science.

And it certainly seems more simple than any theory of multiverses.

Like ghosts, fairies, leprechauns etc? I agree that they are outside the realm of science, but that is because they don't exist.

Fairies and leprechauns, from all the stories, wouldn't be supernatural. They would exist in the natural world if they exist at all. Ghosts would be supernatural unless you consider that they consist of matter and energy, in which case they are part of the natural world. I have quoted this from Understanding Science several times:

Ghosts, for example, are supernatural entities without a basis in the physical universe and so are not subject to the laws of that universe. Hence, ghosts are outside the purview of science, and we cannot study their existence (or lack thereof) with the tools of science. If, however, we hypothesize ghosts to be natural entities, made up of matter and energy and bound by the laws of the universe, then we can study them with the tools of science — and must accept the outcome if the tests we perform suggest that ghosts do not exist as natural entities.

Exactly. How could you know that there is anything there at all?

I don't know, that's what I said. I may believe something is there, but unless that supernatural something chooses to manifest itself to me, I can't know it's there. Just as some people believe there are multiple universes; they can't know it, but they can believe it.

If they saw or felt something, then that is within the realm of science. A material effect occurred in someone's brain (at the very least) and therefore the cause can potentially be detected.

I don't know that your statement is necessarily true. If I feel friendship for someone, is it a material effect; can it be detected other than by assumptions based on my actions? What about envy or other feelings? What about when I do or don't exercise self-control? Make a decision? Remember something? What about appreciation of beauty? My preference for a song you hate? My liking of symmetry?

I believe the mind and the brain are different things and that not everything in the mind is detectable in the brain.

Have you considered the option that people just make stuff up?

I certainly believe that this is a possibility. I just don't believe that it is the only possibility.

I'm sorry to hear that, but if you are Christian, you already believe in at least one Ghost.

Well, as opposed to sorry, I'm grateful for the religious part; not so keen on the ghosts.

The supernatural is some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card that people play when their beliefs turn out to be irrational.

I'll keep restating as long as you (general) keep ignoring the fact that this is not true.

I wonder if anyone ever proposed a "Subnatural" realm; Also outside the realm of science, but in the other direction?

Isn't that basically what I did here:

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0...atisscience_12

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science, but that doesn't mean that these realms are unimportant. In fact, domains such as ethics, aesthetics, and religion fundamentally influence human societies and how those societies interact with science. Neither are such domains unscholarly. In fact, topics like aesthetics, morality, and theology are actively studied by philosophers, historians, and other scholars. However, questions that arise within these domains generally cannot be resolved by science.

• There are things in the natural world (the physical world) that science can observe and/or measure. They are testable. Science has the tools to make observations and/or measurements, which are used as evidence to support or oppose hypotheses. They are "in the realm of science."
  
  
• There are things that are intangible, though not in the supernatural world, that science cannot observe and/or measure, (e.g., judgements on morals, aesthetics, how to use scientific knowledge; ideas on meaning, values, purpose). They are "outside the realm of science."
  
  
• There are things in the supernatural world (i.e., outside the natural or physical world) that science cannot observe and/or measure (e.g., God(s), ghosts, life after death). They are "outside the realm of science."

Wouldn't the middle bullet be something like your "subnatural" realm?

 

[citizenzen]

Well, it certainly makes sense to me that there would be a supernatural realm.

I can understand how you can believe in a realm outside of current scientific understanding, but I don't understand how you can believe in a realm permanently and totally outside all possible future scientific understanding.

It seems to me that throughout human history, when the supernatural is understood, that it fits in the natural realm. It's only our inability to understand it in the first place that relegated it to the realm of supernatural.

So I'm inclined to believe that you're still making the same mistake that humans have made in the past. Can you explain why you believe that you're not?

 

[Brainache]

Well, it certainly makes sense to me that there would be a supernatural realm. Besides, it appeals to my sense of order. And I do like symmetry.

I don't see anything orderly or symetrical about supposing the existence of some invisible realm where impossible things happen.

I think that the universe was created; that creator must have been outside time and space, outside nature, hence supernatural. Because science deals only with the natural world, the supernatural is outside the realm of science.

And it certainly seems more simple than any theory of multiverses.

I've heard of people who think that a giant lizard lives inside the Earth and when it moves around we get earth-quakes. That certainly seems more simple than all that nonsense about Plate-Techtonics...

Fairies and leprechauns, from all the stories, wouldn't be supernatural. They would exist in the natural world if they exist at all. Ghosts would be supernatural unless you consider that they consist of matter and energy, in which case they are part of the natural world. I have quoted this from Understanding Science several times:

If we can see them, that means photons are bouncing off them. If photons are bouncing off them, science can detect them.

I don't know, that's what I said. I may believe something is there, but unless that supernatural something chooses to manifest itself to me, I can't know it's there. Just as some people believe there are multiple universes; they can't know it, but they can believe it.

They can also make a mathematical model of it, not so much with God.

I don't know that your statement is necessarily true. If I feel friendship for someone, is it a material effect; can it be detected other than by assumptions based on my actions? What about envy or other feelings? What about when I do or don't exercise self-control? Make a decision? Remember something? What about appreciation of beauty? My preference for a song you hate? My liking of symmetry?

I believe the mind and the brain are different things and that not everything in the mind is detectable in the brain.

You can believe that if you want, but I think you will find that most people seriously studying the brain and how it works will disagree with you.

I certainly believe that this is a possibility. I just don't believe that it is the only possibility.

I agree. It could also be halucination, pareidolia, optical illusion, hoax... any number of things really. Nothing supernatural at all.

Well, as opposed to sorry, I'm grateful for the religious part; not so keen on the ghosts.

So just the Father and the Son then? No Holy Ghost for you?

I'll keep restating as long as you (general) keep ignoring the fact that this is not true.

You don't think it is irrational to believe in the folk mythology of one little middle eastern tribe? A mythology invented in a time when they believed the Earth was flat and the sky was a dome covered in water?

Isn't that basically what I did here:Wouldn't the middle bullet be something like your "subnatural" realm?

"subnatural" was meant as a joke. Sorry.

 

[Aridas]

Well, it certainly makes sense to me that there would be a supernatural realm. Besides, it appeals to my sense of order. And I do like symmetry.

Can't say that I find it to be particularly symmetric, but then, I favor the geometric use of the term over the vague sense, greatly. Can't say that I see how "order" applies, really, either.

I think that the universe was created; that creator must have been outside time and space, outside nature, hence supernatural. Because science deals only with the natural world, the supernatural is outside the realm of science.

And it certainly seems more simple than any theory of multiverses.

"A wizard did it" is a far simpler explanation than any scientific theory. Quite useless, though, beyond use as a way to dismiss the matter.

I don't know, that's what I said. I may believe something is there, but unless that supernatural something chooses to manifest itself to me, I can't know it's there. Just as some people believe there are multiple universes; they can't know it, but they can believe it.

Go ahead. Believe it if you want. I'm certainly not going to try to stop you.

I don't know that your statement is necessarily true. If I feel friendship for someone, is it a material effect; can it be detected other than by assumptions based on my actions? What about envy or other feelings? What about when I do or don't exercise self-control? Make a decision? Remember something? What about appreciation of beauty? My preference for a song you hate? My liking of symmetry?

Yes, to all. No, I'm not going to provide links to the appropriate bits of neurology out of laziness and the sheer number of questions there.

I believe the mind and the brain are different things and that not everything in the mind is detectable in the brain.

Sure, believe that if you want. Be aware that it is, by your very description, unfalsifiable and untestable. Therefore, no one else has any objective reason to agree.

I certainly believe that this is a possibility. I just don't believe that it is the only possibility.

It's not. It's one of the likelier ones, though. That and being tricked/jumping to conclusions, both because of others and oneself.

I'll keep restating as long as you (general) keep ignoring the fact that this is not true.

Actually, the statement you're responding to is very true. It has no bearing on whether the supernatural either is or can be real, though, just how people use the concept.

 

[FattyCatty]

I was trying to say that the question of whether or not proving some aspect of the supernatural is "real" or not, isn't a matter of being able to prove it with science ... it's more a matter of how it makes us personally "feel" based on our expectations of what is possible or isn't possible.

How "it makes us personally feel" may affect whether or not we believe in whatever "aspect of the supernatural," but doesn't affect whether or not it is real. It isn't a matter of "being able to prove it with science" because the supernatural is outside the purview of science. And I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that there are things that exist about which I neither know nor have a belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#History

In a series of articles and books from 1996 onwards, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term methodological naturalism to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and is not based on dogmatic metaphysical naturalism as claimed by creationists and proponents of intelligent design, in particular Phillip E. Johnson. Pennock's testimony as an expert witness^[8] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today" ^[9]

Here is a quote from Barbara Bradley Hagerty, the religion correspondent for National Public Radio, that touches on our expectations of what is possible or isn't possible:

So I was sitting there – it was a day that John Barrow was going to speak. John Barrow is a brilliant mathematician at Cambridge who was giving a presentation about the anthropic principle, the notion of a fine-tuned universe. Sitting at the table with us, actually, right next to me was Richard Dawkins. He wanted to hear Barrow speak. As you know, Dawkins is a very vocal and famous atheist. So as Barrow was speed-walking us through the argument that we live in an exquisitely calibrated universe, kind of what I think Freeman Dyson said: It’s as if the universe knew we were coming. As he was walking us through this, Barrow said almost as an aside, I’m quite happy with a traditional, theistic view of the universe.

I’m sitting next to Dawkins and I’m feeling him kind of roil like a teapot about to blow. So finally he couldn’t stand it any longer, and he said: Why on earth do you believe in God? And everyone looked at Barrow. And Barrow said: If you want to look for divine action, physicists look at the rationality of the universe and the mathematical structure of the world. Yes, but why do you want to look for divine action, Dawkins said. Well, Barrow said, for the same reason that someone might not want to.
I remember thinking right there: God is a choice. We can look for or exclude the action of the divine. You can look at the evidence and conclude that everything is explained by material means or you can look at the world and the universe and see the hand of God. I don’t think that science can referee this question. I don’t think they can actually get at the answer on this because I think, fundamentally, whether you believe in God is a matter of belief.

In that sense, what we view as being supernatural changes over time and it's not only because our technology and ability to test for it changes, but because our own personal reactions and expectations change.

Now here I partially agree with you. An event or entity previously considered supernatural is revealed to be part of the natural world if the tools of science improve or change to allow for empirical evidence and testable explanations for the event or entity.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles.../gottlieb.html

Science, as an intellectual activity, encompasses observations about the natural world that can be measured and quantified, and the ideas based thereon can be tested, verified, falsified, or modified.

Like watching someone levitate. Maybe the first time you saw this, it spooked you ..... gave you pause, whatever. Then you learned how the trick is done, and so now every time you see someone levitate .... even if you're not sure they performed the trick the same way that you learned it was done ... you can easily assume it's not a supernatural levitation because MAYBE they performed the trick in a predictable manner, as you learned.

Why would I assume that because something happened a certain way once, it must always happen that way? What if that one instance was a freak occurrence? I think more checking is in order. And a preferable assumption would be to assume that either it is or it isn't a supernatural levitation and should be checked.

So the exact basis for understanding how one person levitates isn't necessary to you ... and it's not because you actually cared to find out how one person levitated over another .... it's because it no longer has the same effect on you, once you found out how a person could appear to levitate through a trick and this explanation satisfied you.

I disagree with you here. The explanation satisfied me in one instance. That doesn't mean it convinces me for every instance. I would want more information.

So when it comes to the "supernatural" ... I think if we're being intellectually honest, a lot of us only care about proof so long as it still has some entertainment value, or spook factor, etc and so forth. IOW, so long as it still has some kind of "hold" over us psychologically, we don't have to have proof. Simple explanations can be applied without actually investigating anything and it makes us feel better.

I don't know whether belief requires proof. Mine doesn't. Reasons, yes. And for some things, there can be no scientific proof because they are not in the purview of science.

So every single vision of god is frontal lobe epilepsy.

Not necessarily so. Here is another quote from Barbara Bradley Hagerty, from the same Pew Forum lecture as above

People have long suspected that the temporal lobe has something to do with religious experience. The temporal lobe runs along the side of your head, and it handles things like hearing and smell and memory and emotion. The first concrete evidence that there was a connection between the temporal lobe and spiritual experience was made by a Canadian neurosurgeon named Wilder Penfield.
<snip>
I want to propose that how you come down on that issue depends on whether you think of the brain as a CD player or a radio. Most scientists who think that everything is explainable through material processes think that the brain is like a CD player: The content, the CD with the song on it, for example, is playing in a closed system, and if you take a hammer to the machine, you know, destroy it, the song is not going to play. In other words, no God exists outside of the brain, no God that is trying to communicate exists outside of the brain. All spiritual experience is inside the brain, and when you alter the brain, God and spirituality disappear.

Now there is some scientific support for this line of thinking. These days scientists can make transcendent realities, or God, disappear or appear at will. It’s kind of a party trick. Recently a group of Swiss researchers found out that when they electrically stimulated a certain part of the brain in a woman, she suddenly felt a sensed presence, that there was another being in the room enveloping her. A lot of people describe God that way: a sensed presence, a being nearby enveloping them. So they could conjure up God just by poking part of the brain.
<snip>
But suppose the brain isn’t a CD player. Suppose it’s a radio. Now in this analogy, everyone possesses the neural equipment to receive the radio program in varying degrees. So some have the volume turned low. I would suspect that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have hit the mute button. Other people hear their favorite programs every now and again, maybe some of you all, like me, who have had brief transcendent moments. Some people have the volume way too high or they’re caught between stations and they hear a cacophony, and those people actually need medical help.

But in this analogy, the sender is separate from the receiver, and the content of the transmission doesn’t originate in the brain anymore than, say, the hosts of “All Things Considered” are sitting in your radio when they’re broadcasting, right? So if you destroyed the radio, you’re not going to hear “All Things Considered,” but the transmission – the words of Robert Siegel or Michele Norris – that transmission is still operating. If the brain is a receiver, then it’s picking up God’s communications, which never stop, even when the brain does, even when the brain has been altered by surgery or medication or death.

So that’s not to say that all of our thoughts come from another spiritual realm any more than all of our thoughts come from “All Things Considered,” although I would suspect that all of my thoughts come from “All Things Considered.” But it merely suggests that perhaps people who have vivid or frequent transcendent moments are able to tune into another dimension of reality that many of us ignore. Maybe St. Paul and Joan of Arc weren’t crazy; maybe they just had better antennae.

The highlighted portion is something I disagree with strongly. It makes me resistant to arguments from people who think that way.

And if it's not ... well, it could be, and that's good enough.

No, it's not good enough. Could be isn't is.

But before we knew about frontal lobe epilepsy, we might have been more inclined to keep searching for an explanation that we liked. Now we can apply that explanation every single time, even if the cause is something else. It doesn't matter to us, because the most likely explanation has now become the best choice. The supernatural has been solved.

No, it hasn't.

IOW, the problem of the supernatural is only a problem so long as we aren't bored with it, or acceptance of the explanations of it are good enough by our current personal standards of what an acceptable explanation is.

I disagree.

 

[biomorph]

ftfy. More seriously, the questions usually left to religion in NOMA are ones that simply cannot be answered definitively, regardless of the method.

thanks for the spelling correction, I'll take note next time....

Well there are no questions that cannot be answered definitively. It might be an answer a long time coming, maybe centuries, but if humans are aware of it , they'll answer it. Theres only so much to reality, I think its unwise to put a limit on human understanding. except as individuals maybe...

I'll say this simply. Yes. If you qualify that to be all "real things" or all "physical things" or all "physical processes" or even all "things that interact with our reality," it turns into a much less definite "maybe." Science, certainly, is, by definition, conceptually limited in what it can actually say. If one adds in other methods of understanding, the gaps in our understanding shrink.

There arent any "other methods of understanding" anyway however discovery, is what I'm pointing out, and the understanding that comes later....science's so called "limits" imply it can stop or has stopped, on certain things quite the contrary though.
So no we cannot rationally assume science will never discover everything.
"Everything" is of course at the moment rather undifined perhaps as a whole. but hey! it might be eventually a non infinity?
I can think of certain things that we'll probably not ever figure out be cause the universe might wipe us out somewhere down the line. Its always the big question, what's out there?

"All" is an absolute. Omniscience, really, in this case. I consider the chances of humanity becoming the equivalent to omniscient to be incredibly unlikely, myself.

Well I don't. No-one may personally achieve this, but to say humanity itself will never achieve this is setting your sights too low, assumes there's alot more out the than we can even ever realise in the entire time of human future existance. Have we time is the question, not "we'll never figure that out.

That is "Omniscience" - note the "science" bit. ...lol

Noma is really about religously motivated pressure to keep science out of the so-called "Big Questions", however NOMA is not respected by that which marches on regardless, science.
Noma trys to pursuade people to not to try to understand things. It fails and is useless, bit by bit, and it never reclaims knowledge. It sez "you cant know and mustn't look...

This begs the question... if it's truly unknowable, how could we know of it in the first place?

Like I'm suggesting, there's (given enough time) no such thing.

Its an old fashioned quaint way of saying we can never concieve of certain things , by the way of progress......as yet those things are undefined of course in real terms. Is there enough time?

 

[Aridas]

Well there are no questions that cannot be answered definitively. It might be an answer a long time coming, maybe centuries, but if humans are aware of it , they'll answer it. Theres only so much to reality, I think its unwise to put a limit on human understanding. except as individuals maybe...

Heh. "What should we value?" is an example of a question that cannot be answered definitively. "Promoting which values would best lead us to our goal, if our end goal is x?" is a question that could be answered definitely, potentially. "What values are we more likely to value, given specific genetics and specific environmental exposure?" is a question that could be answered definitively. "What should we do?" is a question that cannot be answered definitively. "What is or are the best courses of action if we want to accomplish x?" is a question that could potentially be answered definitively. Going back from there, how do we determine what x is, in the first place? If there's a definitive answer, keep going back. Eventually, you'll get to a value judgement. Science, specifically, doesn't deal with what values we should choose, just what value judgements we should make if we want to do something.

There arent any "other methods of understanding" anyway however discovery, is what I'm pointing out, and the understanding that comes later....science's so called "limits" imply it can stop or has stopped, on certain things quite the contrary though.

Properly based logic isn't a method of understanding that isn't science? That's news to me. Not news that I trust all that much, either. Seems to me like you might want to review what science actually is, before you start saying things like that.

As for science's limits, they are what they are. It's as simple as that. Science can be considered an incredibly powerful tool, but, like any tool, it only truly works when used appropriately. Science is limited, by its very definition, into a form that does not and cannot deal with all concepts. Science will not ever say that there are not invisible and completely undetectable anthropomorphic aardvarks behind you, sticking their tongues out at you, as an example. Does this make it less valuable as a tool? Not in the least. Does this mean that it cannot answer all questions? Yes.

So no we cannot rationally assume science will never discover everything.

Yes, we can. For multiple reasons. First being the "rationally" in your statement. Second being the "assume." Third being the "everything."

Rationally, I doubt that science, as far as humanity can take it, will determine what, for example, the last coherent thought of a specific Chinese farmer was, just before perishing in a rather sudden, mundane, and completely unforeseen way, a millennium in the past from the moment I write this. I would even go so far as to assume that anyone who assumes that it will be able to do so is irrational. I may be wrong, certainly, but the chances that science will answer that question are exceedingly low, for a multitude of reasons. And, frankly, that tiny bit of information is just one of a seemingly infinite number that are included in "everything," even if you constrain "everything" to "everything in known and knowable reality."

"Everything" is of course at the moment rather undifined perhaps as a whole. but hey! it might be eventually a non infinity?

It's either infinite or it's not, to nitpick. The more you actually consider the implications of "everything," the better you understand why humanity is unlikely to know "everything," ever. That doesn't change that science may very well be the best tool that we ever receive to understand why things occur the way that they do, on the whole, even if we're unlikely to know the exact number of electrons currently being used in the part of the specific biological system that is allowing you to be reading this, right now. Or understand it, for that matter. Without forgetting that it's actually a bit variable, given chemistry, so it's probably actually varied a bit in the time that it's taken you to process each letter that you're reading.

I can think of certain things that we'll probably not ever figure out be cause the universe might wipe us out somewhere down the line. Its always the big question, what's out there?

As demonstrated, I can think of more than just that, with ease.

Well I don't. No-one may personally achieve this, but to say humanity itself will never achieve this is setting your sights too low, assumes there's alot more out the than we can even ever realise in the entire time of human future existance. Have we time is the question, not "we'll never figure that out.

You're entitled to your belief. Preferably, beliefs should be kept in perspective, though.

That is "Omniscience" - note the "science" bit. ...lol

Somewhat obviously, much as you've already tried to deny that there are other methods of understanding than science, earlier in your post.

Noma is really about religously motivated pressure to keep science out of the so-called "Big Questions", however NOMA is not respected by that which marches on regardless, science.

Sure, why not? That's likely much of the motivation for it. That still doesn't change the simple fact that science doesn't begin to claim to deal with the areas that are left to religion, under NOMA. I'm not really defending NOMA, though. As I've touched on, I actually think that religion is a rather poor method to use to make value judgements and not trustworthy enough to believe any miracle claims that may be made, without solid supporting evidence.

Noma trys to pursuade people to not to try to understand things. It fails and is useless, bit by bit, and it never reclaims knowledge. It sez "you cant know and mustn't look...

*shrugs*

Maybe. Again, I'm not a proponent of NOMA. I'm a proponent of understanding things and logic. Spelling, too, a bit, but I'm usually a bit lenient, online, like I've been with this entire post of yours.

Its an old fashioned quaint way of saying we can never concieve of certain things , by the way of progress......as yet those things are undefined of course in real terms. Is there enough time?

*shrugs*

Maybe. Some questions simply cannot be answered definitively, given their very conceptual nature, though, as I've said. There's the base of truth that's used to justify it. Religion, to note, cannot truly answer those questions, either. Religion and philosophy can make assertions that are obviously objectively baseless, though, and remain within what they can do. Science, if handled honestly, doesn't. It's about as simple as that.

All that's a distraction, though, from what you responded to, specifically. I find your understanding of the concept of "unknowable" to be remarkably lacking. I also find your comprehension of the sheer quantity of "everything" to be questionable, especially if you think that time is the only barrier.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, it certainly makes sense to me that there would be a supernatural realm. Besides, it appeals to my sense of order. And I do like symmetry.

I think that the universe was created; that creator must have been outside time and space, outside nature, hence supernatural. Because science deals only with the natural world, the supernatural is outside the realm of science.

And it certainly seems more simple than any theory of multiverses.

And you would be completely wrong to view that as simpler. There is a hidden assumption in the simplicity of Goddidit -- positing a supernatural realm in addition to a natural realm as opposed to a natural realm alone indicates reliance on substance dualism. Any answer that requires two fundamental substances is infinitely more complex than an explanation based on a single fundamental substance.

The answer Goddidit could theoretically be correct, but saying that answer is more parsimonious than a 'natural' explanation is just wrong.

 

[Dani]

And you would be completely wrong to view that as simpler. There is a hidden assumption in the simplicity of Goddidit -- positing a supernatural realm in addition to a natural realm as opposed to a natural realm alone indicates reliance on substance dualism. Any answer that requires two fundamental substances is infinitely more complex than an explanation based on a single fundamental substance.

The answer Goddidit could theoretically be correct, but saying that answer is more parsimonious than a 'natural' explanation is just wrong.

I was going to make a similar comment.

In fact, we use the principle of Parsimony quite often, even if intuitively, to dismiss theories of which there isn't compelling evidence, and we usually are pretty convinced of our conclusion. This principle leads me to strongly believe that we don't live in the Matrix or that gravity isn't caused by undetectable supernatural gnomes connecting everything in the universe together with invisible chewing gum. Likewise, I strongly believe that the Abrahamic notion of God doesn't have a correspondence with reality. Hence, I'm a strong atheist in regards to that specific god.

On the other hand, I disagree that the supernatural isn't testable. There are different ways to test a hypothesis. We can, for example, test the internal logic of a proposition, apply Parsimony/Occam's razor when there is not compelling evidence for the additional information provided in a claim or use inductive reasoning as complementary evidence. We don't necessarily have to directly see the evidence to reach our conclusions about how the world is, and that is especially true when we reach conclusions about the infinite ways how the world isn't. Also, the supernatural, in the sense used by FattyCatty, is as empirically testable as anything that doesn't exist. I can claim anything I want and attach an ad-hoc explanation to it, defying the validity of the epistemological tools used to examine my claim for whatever reason. It doesn't need to be supernatural, because there's nothing particular about the supernatural that isn't about any other claim that justifies itself outside the domains of science and reason. If for example, we decide to defy logic, our conclusions may be right to ourselves (even absolutely right!) but they will most likely be scientifically wrong.

 

[Trent Wray]

How "it makes us personally feel" may affect whether or not we believe in whatever "aspect of the supernatural," but doesn't affect whether or not it is real. It isn't a matter of "being able to prove it with science" because the supernatural is outside the purview of science. And I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that there are things that exist about which I neither know nor have a belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#History


Here is a quote from Barbara Bradley Hagerty, the religion correspondent for National Public Radio, that touches on our expectations of what is possible or isn't possible:



Now here I partially agree with you. An event or entity previously considered supernatural is revealed to be part of the natural world if the tools of science improve or change to allow for empirical evidence and testable explanations for the event or entity.



Why would I assume that because something happened a certain way once, it must always happen that way? What if that one instance was a freak occurrence? I think more checking is in order. And a preferable assumption would be to assume that either it is or it isn't a supernatural levitation and should be checked.


I disagree with you here. The explanation satisfied me in one instance. That doesn't mean it convinces me for every instance. I would want more information.


I don't know whether belief requires proof. Mine doesn't. Reasons, yes. And for some things, there can be no scientific proof because they are not in the purview of science.


Not necessarily so. Here is another quote from Barbara Bradley Hagerty, from the same Pew Forum lecture as aboveThe highlighted portion is something I disagree with strongly. It makes me resistant to arguments from people who think that way.


No, it's not good enough. Could be isn't is.


No, it hasn't.


I disagree.

Sorry to not include my own quotes within your quotes, but some of your response here looks like you thought I was saying "you" and meaning you specifically, when I was giving a generic example and not even reflecting my own POV in those examples, and using "you" in a generic sense Sorry if that wasn't clear

But irregardless, you seem to basically be agreeing with my premise anyway:

On the one hand you say that the supernatural is outside the purview of science. On the other hand, you say that an event or entity previously considered supernatural is revealed to be part of the natural world if the tools of science improve or change to allow for empirical evidence and testable explanations for the event or entity.

The key word there is *considered*. Which is similar to what I was saying ..... it often boils down to what is CONSIDERED supernatural. In that regard, it can easily fall under the purview of science if we allow it, because we will more rigorously explore "proving" whatever it is, depending on how we consider the phenomena. And that isn't always based on what level of tech we have at our disposal, or to what degree we can explore proofs of this or that .... sometimes it's simply based on what we consider to be spooky, impossible, or merely interesting. And your response as to how you might handle examining someone levitating is a perfect example of what I was describing ... you would continue to examine multiple cases for whatever your reasons. Some wouldn't even care to examine them at all because levitation lost it's appeal as something interesting (it's a simple magic trick that can be easily explained at times, depending on the setting, and that's good enough to remove the "mystique" that seems to be a quality of the supernatural). Furthermore, we can levitate frogs in a Bitter magnetic field of about 10 teslas (I'm speaking beyond my understanding here a bit ) .... so it's no longer even a matter of being supernatural, or magic .... it's POSSIBLE. Now it's just cool. But to someone meeting David Blaine in the street, it might still be considered supernatural to them on some level. But would they put forth the effort to debunk it ? Why should they ? We know how to do it with magnets, we know how to do it via illusions and magic techniques. Even if we can't explain one instance, Occam's Razor provides contentment that we can apply across the board if we choose to. Or not. Is it supernatural ? That's my point .... the goalposts can frequently be moved to suit the mood.

 

[FattyCatty]

Sorry to not include my own quotes within your quotes, but some of your response here looks like you thought I was saying "you" and meaning you specifically, when I was giving a generic example and not even reflecting my own POV in those examples, and using "you" in a generic sense Sorry if that wasn't clear

And I apologize for taking it to be a you personal and answering with my personal opinions.

But irregardless, you seem to basically be agreeing with my premise anyway:

Well, then, I have to apologize again. I obviously said what I thought very poorly, because I do not agree with your point.

On the one hand you say that the supernatural is outside the purview of science. On the other hand, you say that an event or entity previously considered supernatural is revealed to be part of the natural world if the tools of science improve or change to allow for empirical evidence and testable explanations for the event or entity.

I think this is where I wasn't started being unclear. I'll give it another try. To address the first sentence:

• There is a natural world; about it we can make observations (and measure/quantify them) and base on them ideas that we can test, verify, falsify, or modify.
  
• There is a supernatural world; about it we cannot make observations (so there is nothing to measure/quantify) and the ideas we have about it cannot be tested, verified, falsified, or modified.
  
• We decide what belongs in each category, using our ability to make observations and form testable ideas as criteria.

Here is an explanation of that separation from Understanding Science:

Modern science does not deal with supernatural explanations because they are not scientifically testable — in other words, there's no way to gather evidence that would help us determine whether or not the explanations are accurate. In contrast to supernatural explanations, natural explanations generate specific expectations that we can compare to evidence from the natural world in order to determine whether the explanation is likely to be accurate. For example, an object's acceleration due to gravity increases as the mass of the object increases. That explanation for one aspect of gravitational attraction generates specific, testable expectations. If the idea were accurate, a baseball and a much heavier lead ball of the same size should fall at different rates, with the lead ball experiencing a larger acceleration. We can perform this test, and when we do, we will find that the expectation (falling at different rates) does not match our observations, providing evidence that the idea may be incorrect. Now, consider our far-fetched, supernatural explanation for gravity — gnomes with chewing gum. Would they attach the same strength of gum to a baseball and a lead ball? Would they attach extra strength gum to the lead ball, causing it to fall faster? Who knows what supernatural beings wielding magical chewing gum would choose to do? Regardless of what we observe when we drop the two balls, we can always imagine a way to chalk it up to the gnomes. Supernatural explanations, by their very character, cannot be tested with the methods of science. That doesn't mean that they are wrong; they are simply outside the realm of what science can legitimately investigate. Any effort to redefine science to include supernatural explanations is working at cross purposes to science's main goal: to build reliable knowledge about the natural world based on natural explanations.

More on that separation from Understanding Science:

In practice, what's natural is often identified by testability. Natural things behave in predictable ways — though we may not yet fully understand them — which have observable outcomes. This predictability means that we can test hypotheses about natural entities by making observations. Ghosts, for example, are supernatural entities without a basis in the physical universe and so are not subject to the laws of that universe. Hence, ghosts are outside the purview of science, and we cannot study their existence (or lack thereof) with the tools of science. If, however, we hypothesize ghosts to be natural entities, made up of matter and energy and bound by the laws of the universe, then we can study them with the tools of science — and must accept the outcome if the tests we perform suggest that ghosts do not exist as natural entities.

And, more on that separation from a legal perspective, from the Kitzmiller v Dover decision:

<snip>
They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth. (9:21-22 (Haught ); 1:63 (Miller)). In deliberately omitting theological or "ultimate" explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world. (9:21 (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)).

As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter "NAS") was recognized by experts for both parties as the "most prestigious" scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. (1:94, 160-61 (Miller); 14:72 (Alters); 37:31 (Minnich)). NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: "Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science." ( P-649 at 27).

This rigorous attachment to "natural" explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. (1:63 (Miller); 5:29-31 (Pennock)). We are in agreement with Plaintiffs' lead expert Dr. Miller, that from a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a "science stopper." (3:14-15 (Miller)). As Dr. Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer. Id.

To address the second sentence:

Originally, given an entity "A":

• Based on our inability to make observations about "A"
• Believing that this inability would not change
• We categorize "A" as a supernatural entity.

Then, given a change in the tools available to science:

• We now have the ability to make observations about "A"
• These observations can be measured/quantified
• We can now form ideas about "A" that can be tested, verified, falsified, or modified
• "A" belongs in the category we call the "natural world" and turns out to have been incorrectly put in the category "supernatural world."

The key word there is *considered*. Which is similar to what I was saying ..... it often boils down to what is CONSIDERED supernatural. In that regard, it can easily fall under the purview of science if we allow it, because we will more rigorously explore "proving" whatever it is, depending on how we consider the phenomena. And that isn't always based on what level of tech we have at our disposal, or to what degree we can explore proofs of this or that .... sometimes it's simply based on what we consider to be spooky, impossible, or merely interesting.

The highlighted part is where I disagree with you. I changed "considered" to "categorized" in my attempt to be more clear. That categorization is based on specific criteria, not on a whim because that something is more or less boring or frightening.

And your response as to how you might handle examining someone levitating is a perfect example of what I was describing ... you would continue to examine multiple cases for whatever your reasons.

My "reasons" are that one instance doesn't prove all instances and I want more evidence before I make a decision about whether or not all levitation is a trick.

Some wouldn't even care to examine them at all because levitation lost it's appeal as something interesting (it's a simple magic trick that can be easily explained at times, depending on the setting, and that's good enough to remove the "mystique" that seems to be a quality of the supernatural). Furthermore, we can levitate frogs in a Bitter magnetic field of about 10 teslas (I'm speaking beyond my understanding here a bit ) .... so it's no longer even a matter of being supernatural, or magic .... it's POSSIBLE.

But doesn't this prove my point? There was one instance where levitation was a trick; from that you wanted to assume all levitation is a trick (or assume it doesn't matter because who cares). I wanted to keep looking at levitation because one instance doesn't prove all instances. Don't we want to investigate what happens to see how it happens? Isn't that science?

And, lo, here is an instance where you say levitation is a natural phenomenon. Isn't it a good thing that we kept looking at levitation and didn't just go, "Oh, well, it was a trick that one time"? Now, depending on how much data has been gathered and how convincing it is, we decide whether we want to keep looking at levitation or whether we want to come to a conclusion about it (e.g., sometimes it's a trick, sometimes it's a natural phenomenon, we've never seen it be a supernatural phenomenon).

Now it's just cool. But to someone meeting David Blaine in the street, it might still be considered supernatural to them on some level. But would they put forth the effort to debunk it ? Why should they ? We know how to do it with magnets, we know how to do it via illusions and magic techniques. Even if we can't explain one instance, Occam's Razor provides contentment that we can apply across the board if we choose to. Or not. Is it supernatural ? That's my point .... the goalposts can frequently be moved to suit the mood.

I guess this is where I don't get it or agree or something. You want to look at something enough times to come to a valid conclusion about it. I'm not saying check every occurrence (impossible!) but there are ways to decide what an adequate sample is; one is not usually an adequate sample with which to draw a conclusion.

Although I suppose one instance would be enough if you could show that it was neither a trick nor natural. But then someone else would just say it must be a trick we can't figure out. Then what? I'm trying to say one instance isn't enough to prove; it may be enough to disprove.

And I don't think we change how we think to "suit the mood." I think our ways of thinking are part of us. They may change over time, but not so whimsically as you propose.

 

[Brainache]

... irregardless...

Please stop using this word, I find it really really really really annoying.

What you mean is "regardless" or "irrespective".

"Irregardless" is just wrong.

 

[westprog]

Only if you have no understanding of what a null hypothesis is.

Yes. It's a hypothesis. It is not a dogma. It's not something that scientists are expected to believe.

I think that some of the people complaining that religion doesn't work like science would actually like science to be a bit more like religion.

 

[westprog]

How would you see them differing?


I can't think of anything that would stand up to scientific rigour, but then again you've switched the argument with that question. For what you were arguing, I need only to dispute your expectations.

This claim that the bible should be subject to scientific scrutiny only makes sense if it were being claimed as a scientific text. There are creationists who claim this, but that certainly not the position of mainstream christianity.

 

[westprog]

I liked many of the points Sean made and it was a worthwhile read. I disagree with the value of a 'purity of language' argument about what we should label religion. Maybe in the internet age we are all doomed to argue semantics.

I understand it this way. Science, whatever its methods, reaches its conclusions by placing or accepting limits on what can or can't be true.

Science asks - what could make it NOT true? - and provisionally accepts some things, or provisionally rejects others.

The kind of religion that is incompatible with science accepts no such limits. "All things are possible", even if no supernatural element was involved, is at its very core a religious statement, and one that will lead to destinations far distant than science will reach.

A question to religion then, would be something like - what can not be true? or what are your limits?

If the argument is that religion is incompatible with science because religion isn't science - well, it isn't. Calling that "incompatible" seems a vague enough claim. Lots of things aren't science. Are they all "incompatible".