Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Zenith wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:If nature reveals God than a naturalistic explanation is a Thiestic explanation as well, don't you think?

i think this statement embodies naturalism very well.

Naturalism says God doesn't exist, so how can you start with "God doesn't exist" and ever come to the conclusion "God exists?"

If you beleive that nature is a reflection of and a revalation of God, then the study of nature is indirectly a study of God.

The type of naturalism required to conduct science, is the kind which limits studies to natural occurances, this does not reject God a priori.

If you think I'm wrong correct me, but I really think the disagreement between you guys (BGood and August/KMart) comes down to how one defines "naturalism". For example, does it simply mean something left to its "natural" state (e.g., the natural state of a dog without flea powder is to have fleas)? Or does it mean only the physical world (if so then why the arbitrary restraint of "physical" and not simply the whole world we live within)? Until there is agreement on the language being used within this discussion, I don't think either side will end up reaching an agreement.

I remember CS Lewis in one of his books spoke of how many use the word "natural" without ever defining what they mean by it. Lewis opted for the first definition above, which would mean an investigation of the natural working of the world within which we live would not preclude God's existence (just like it doesn't preclude us who also appear to transcend the natural order of things). Yet, for some reason naturalism is often accepted as precluding God's existence or anything "supernatural" (whatever "supernatural" means—are we also supernatural since we can transcend the natural order?). Adding to the confusion is that both definitions are often used willy-nilly by people who don't stick to one particular definition, which also causes much confusion.

It appears to me that KMart and August are here taking "natural" to more mean the physical word—everything but God. Then as evolution is the result of a "natural" philosophy (bearing in mind they understand "natural" to preclude God's existence), they see it ought to be rejected for why should we as Christians depend upon a theory based upon a philosophy which rules out God from the get go? We should rather look to all hypothesis' within all fields of science (not just the empirical sciences, but also philosophical and even theological sciences).

On the other hand, I see BGood is more inline with Lewis' definition of "natural". So I see he is having a hard time understanding how evolution, which he would see as simply a theory developed from an investigation of the natural working of things in the world, rules out God's existence. This becomes apparent when BGood writes: "If you beleive that nature is a reflection of and a revalation of God, then the study of nature is indirectly a study of God."

Personally, I prefer to accept CS Lewis' definition as much as possible, and so do not see that naturalism necessarily precludes God's existence nor says God can't intervene within the world. It says nothing about God, it says nothing about us... As a Christian I see naturalism is really a philosophy of trying to observe things in the world around us in their natural state within the laws God set in place or continues to govern our world through. Sadly, naturalism has more than one meaning, and there is a "naturalism" which rules out God's intervention (as August pointed out earlier a naturalism that at most supports a Deistic god). I suppose the person using the word "naturalism", and also context within which it is used largely dictates how it is to be understood.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo....

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:He doesn't use that definition of naturalism. There are connotative meanings to words when taken in context.

Which definition of naturalism does he use then? He acknowledges the use of a metaphysical assumption to arrive at whatever definition of naturalism he uses. What is the underlying foundation of the metaphysical assumption? Is it theistic or not? You already showed that you believe it is deistic.

Here are some definitions, from a spectrum of sources.

"Naturalism is the understanding that there is a single, natural world as shown by science, and that we are completely included in it. Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us. Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself. So we are fully caused creatures, and seeing just how we are caused gives us power and control, while encouraging compassion and humility. By understanding consciousness, choice, and even our highest capacities as materially based, naturalism re-enchants the physical world, allowing us to be at home in the universe. Naturalism shows our full connection to the world and others, it leads to an ethics of compassion, and it gives us far greater control over our circumstances." http://www.naturalism.org/descriptions.htm

"Naturalism

As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the physical world is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it." More simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism is the antithesis of supernaturalism."

" * (I) If nature is understood in the restricted sense of physical, or material, nature, naturalism will be the tendency to look upon the material universe as the only reality, to reduce all laws to mechanical uniformities and to deny the dualism of spirit and matter. Mental and moral processes will be but special manifestations of matter rigorously governed by its laws.
* (II) The dualism of mind and matter may be admitted, but only as a dualism of modes or appearances of the same identical substance. Nature includes manifold phenomena and a common substratum of the phenomena, but for its actual course and for its ultimate explanation, it requires no principle distinct from itself. In this supposition, naturalism denies the existence of a transcendent cause of the world and endeavours to give a full account of all processes by the unfolding of potencies essential to the universe under laws that are necessary and eternal.
* (III) Finally, if the existence of a transcendent First Cause, or personal God, is admitted as the only satisfactory explanation of the world, Naturalism claims that the laws governing the activity and development of irrational and of rational beings are never interfered with. It denies the possibility, or at least the fact, of any transitory intervention of God in nature, and of any revelation and permanent supernatural order for man." Catholic Encyclopedia

"naturalism

Naturalism is a metaphysical theory that holds that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws. Naturalism posits that the universe is a vast "machine" or "organism," devoid of general purpose and indifferent to human needs and desires.....Naturalism does not deny the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation." Skeptic Dictionary

"The naturalist maintains that all of what there is belongs to the natural world. Obviously, a great deal turns on how nature is understood. But the key point is that an accurate, adequate conception of the world does not (according to the naturalist) include reference to supernatural entities or agencies. According to the naturalist, there are no Platonic forms, Cartesian mental substances, Kantian noumena, or any other agents, powers, or entities that do not (in some broad sense) belong to nature. As a very loose characterization, it may suffice to say that nature is the order of things accessible to us through observation and the methods of the empirical sciences. If some other method, such as a priori theorizing, is needed to have access to the alleged entity or to the truth in question, then it is not a real entity or a genuine truth. According to the naturalist, there is only the natural order." Encyclopedia of Philosophy

And what kind of naturalism is this? The kind that excludes miracles and whatnot.

Again, this proves my point. Does the Bible state that God interacts with the real world or not? On what basis do you exclude "miracles and whatnot"?

And why?
Because science is practical and pragmatic, how does one plan to observe a miracle and test the causes behind it?

Science is practical and pragmatic only for non-teleological sciences. Furthermore, and I guess this is a point I wll have to make several times during this discussion, your statement commits the logical fallacy of fact-value seperation. How do you right now account for the origin of life and the universe?

How do you know that the laws of nature are not the direct act of God? Is it possible that every tiny vibration and movement of every atom is the hand of God?
It's all perspective don't you think? Or do you beleive that God is limited like a man.

The point is that naturalism does not allow you to make assumptions like those, as can be seen above. It by definition requires the cause to be materialistic.

Then what causes the regularities? Science studies the regularities, it makes no mention of what caused them.

No, the assumption is that it is a natural cause. Logically, for naturalism of any kind to remain internally consistent, it needs to make that assumption.

Of course I believe that God is the cause of those regularities. That is inconsistent with the closed system approach of naturalism.

The fact remains that much of what we discovered in science can be described mechanically. Do you reject the results of experimentation which have brought forth the modern world?

As I already mentioned, that applies to non-teleological sciences, and I have no quarrel with that.

If nature reveals God than a naturalistic explanation is a Thiestic explanation as well, don't you think?

Not according to naturalism. And once again you are relegating God to a secondary cause, subject to a naturalistic explanation.

If you beleive that nature is a reflection of and a revalation of God, then the study of nature is indirectly a study of God.

And if you don't believe that, then what? It is equally valid in terms of its fact-value to an atheist.

The type of naturalism required to conduct science, is the kind which limits studies to natural occurances, this does not reject God a priori.

If you are referring to methodological naturalism, if you claim that it does not reject God a-priori, can you please describe the process under methodological naturalism whereby we can determine the existence of God, or His causal actions in nature?

Again, naturalism, in whichever guise, by definition excludes the metaphysical, even though it makes some metaphysical assumptions of its own.

My request still stands, please show how naturalism and theism is logically compatible. Theism by definition includes the involvement of God in His creation, every day, while naturalism excludes the possibility of that. Any attempt to reconcile the two requires compromising to one side or the other. God becomes a deistic God, relegated to secondary causes or naturalism is nonsense, as far as teleological or origin science is concerned.

Kurieuo wrote:If you think I'm wrong correct me, but I really think the disagreement between you guys (BGood and August/KMart) comes down to how one defines "naturalism". For example, does it simply mean something left to its "natural" state (e.g., the natural state of a dog without flea powder is to have fleas)? Or does it mean only the physical world (if so then why the arbitrary restraint of "physical" and not simply the whole world we live within)? Until there is agreement on the language being used within this discussion, I don't think either side will end up reaching an agreement.

There are basically two types of naturalism, philosophical naturalism, and methodological naturalism. The first one rejects outright the possibility of anything outside of the observable natural world, while the second is a weaker version of that, postulating that there is a common methodology which can be used to describe the natural world, but does not necessarily reject the existence of the supernatural. I understand Bgood is arguing for the second.

I remember CS Lewis in one of his books spoke of how many use the word "natural" without ever defining what they mean by it. Lewis opted for the first definition above, which would mean an investigation of the natural working of the world within which we live would not preclude God's existence (just like it doesn't preclude us who also appear to transcend the natural order of things).

And that is true in the case of Lewis. However, the accepted definition of naturalism, as quoted from many sources, includes the rejection of the supernatural. I am pretty sure that that definition is not what Ruse had in mind when he quoted naturalism as foundational to evolution.

Yet, for some reason naturalism is often accepted as precluding God's existence or anything "supernatural" (whatever "supernatural" means—are we also supernatural since we can transcend the natural order?). Adding to the confusion is that both definitions are often used willy-nilly by people who don't stick to one particular definition, which also causes much confusion.

I would agree that definitions can caue confusion, which is why I gave a dictionary definition of naturalism in my first reply. I followed that with a few more, all seemingly saying the same thing.

It appears to me that KMart and August are here taking "natural" to more mean the physical word—everything but God. Then as evolution is the result of a "natural" philosophy (bearing in mind they understand "natural" to preclude God's existence), they see it ought to be rejected for why should we as Christians depend upon a theory based upon a philosophy which rules out God from the get go? We should rather look to all hypothesis' within all fields of science (not just the empirical sciences, but also philosophical and even theological sciences).

My position is based on the commonly accepted definition of naturalism, born out of logical positivism in the enlightenment, and consistently used over the last few hundred years or so. If anyone wishes to differ from me by redefining naturalism, they are of course welcome to do so. I would point out though that most philosophers of science, inlcuding Ruse, would not adhere to any new definition of naturalism, and as such, my position would remain true.

On the other hand, I see BGood is more inline with Lewis' definition of "natural". So I see he is having a hard time understanding how evolution, which he would see as simply a theory developed from an investigation of the natural working of things in the world, rules out God's existence. This becomes apparent when BGood writes: "If you beleive that nature is a reflection of and a revalation of God, then the study of nature is indirectly a study of God."

This commits the fact-value (naturalistic) fallacy. You cannot logically distinguish between the fact and its ethical value to humans. In this case, Bgood is attempting to assign to nature the nature of God, which is presumed to be of an ethical value.

Personally, I prefer to accept CS Lewis' definition as much as possible, and so do not see that naturalism necessarily precludes God's existence nor says God can't intervene within the world. It says nothing about God, it says nothing about us... As a Christian I see naturalism is really a philosophy of trying to observe things in the world around us in their natural state within the laws God set in place or continues to govern our world through. Sadly, naturalism has more than one meaning, and there is a "naturalism" which rules out God's intervention (as August pointed out earlier a naturalism that at most supports a Deistic god). I suppose the person using the word "naturalism", and also context within which it is used largely dictates how it is to be understood.

True, but then we are not dealing with the commonly accepted defintions of naturalism, we are dealing with Lewis's attempt to redefine it, which leads to a compromise on one side, in this case, on the side of naturalism. The context in which Ruse used it, which was the starting point of this discussion, was in his speech where he defined evolution as a secular religion. So I hardly think that he intended to use a defintion consistent with Lewis.

Are "words" and their meanings discovered as apart of the furniture of the universe within which we live, or are they developed and given meaning by the people who use them? I believe the latter is true, and therefore a particular word (such as "naturalism") can mean different things to different people within different contexts. It was my impression that BGood appeared to be using it in a different sense to to you.

Additionally, I would say the common usage of Naturalism as a philosophy which only accepts what is empirically testable or physical (physicalism) is an arbitrary definition for which there is no basis. Many definitions of naturalism are often meaningless or circular. For example, naturalism as "a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance" is meaningless for supernatural receives its meaning only when it is known what is "natural". And if what is "natural" is said to encompass only the physical world, then what if the physical world is founded upon or mixed within a non-physical/spiritual world? Perhaps the physical world on its own would be an unstructured mess if not held together by the providence of God (the spiritual). Given such a case, the "natural" laws we experience are really not built upon the physical and this whole dualism distinction between what is "natural" and "supernatural" becomes meaningless nonsense.

Kurieuo

Just thought I'd add another post to try bring further understanding to what I am arguing and for what reason I am arguing for it.

August wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It appears to me that KMart and August are here taking "natural" to more mean the physical word—everything but God. Then as evolution is the result of a "natural" philosophy (bearing in mind they understand "natural" to preclude God's existence), they see it ought to be rejected for why should we as Christians depend upon a theory based upon a philosophy which rules out God from the get go? We should rather look to all hypothesis' within all fields of science (not just the empirical sciences, but also philosophical and even theological sciences).

My position is based on the commonly accepted definition of naturalism, born out of logical positivism in the enlightenment, and consistently used over the last few hundred years or so. If anyone wishes to differ from me by redefining naturalism, they are of course welcome to do so. I would point out though that most philosophers of science, inlcuding Ruse, would not adhere to any new definition of naturalism, and as such, my position would remain true.

As I mentioned people use "naturalism" in a variety of ways, and I'm sure Ruse is no exception. Yet, as I hope I demonstrated in causing much confusion over what is "natural" in my last two posts, when it is used in a way which causes an arbitrary distinction between the physical and spiritual, then it actually commits a fallacy which begs the question in the favour of physicalism or materialism (I use these interchangably). I am certain there would be much discussion within philosophical circles over what is "natural" and hence "naturalism".

Now how does this benefit the Christian, for up until now I've received the impression that as KMart posted some are thinking I've turned to "the dark side" on this particular issue. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. As I see it there are two ways someone can attack "Naturalism" (as objectively defined by you, and which you think is commonly accepted—which I agree it is!). They can either 1) try to win by playing the game of the Atheist who has rigged the language in his favour as though "Naturalism" means something sensible when they draw an arbitrary distinction in favour of their most precious physicalism, or 2) they can pull out the game of the Atheist from underneath him and call his bluff as I have attempted to do in my last post by showing that Naturalism accepted as all the is physical and nothing else begs the question and does nothing but add complete confusion for it is nonsense.

And so we turn to another definition which does make sense:

K wrote:I see BGood is more inline with Lewis' definition of "natural" [i.e., something left to its "natural" state (e.g., the natural state of a dog without flea powder is to have fleas)]... Personally, I prefer to accept CS Lewis' definition as much as possible, and so do not see that naturalism necessarily precludes God's existence nor says God can't intervene within the world. It says nothing about God, it says nothing about us... I see [a consistent] naturalism is a philosophy of trying to observe things in the world around us in their natural state within the laws God set in place or continues to govern our world through.

August wrote:

K wrote:This [definition being accepted by BGood] becomes apparent when BGood writes: "If you beleive that nature is a reflection of and a revalation of God, then the study of nature is indirectly a study of God."

This commits the fact-value (naturalistic) fallacy. You cannot logically distinguish between the fact and its ethical value to humans. In this case, Bgood is attempting to assign to nature the nature of God, which is presumed to be of an ethical value.

I personally did not think BGood was being pantheistic here, and if he was I'd not agree with him. Rather, I thought he was more upholding "natural theology" (perhaps an oxymoron if it is believed what is natural rules out God's existence ) which adopts the idea that since God created or unpins the world within which we live, then studying nature can also tell us something of God.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:I personally did not think BGood was being pantheistic here, and if he was I'd not agree with him. Rather, I thought he was more upholding "natural theology" (perhaps an oxymoron if it is believed what is natural rules out God's existence ) which adopts the idea that since God created or unpins the world within which we live, then studying nature can also tell us something of God.

Can you maybe expand a bit on what you mean by your last sentence, and what exactly you think Bgood means? What can the scientific method, based on methodological naturalism, studying nature, tell us about God? My impression is that he is saying that we study nature to find out how it works, but that study cannot tell us anything about God.

I agree with the rest of what you say, that is why I feel so strongly about the issue.

August,

As I've stated many times, and I think you can clearly see now is that scientific study in itself is methodical and only describes natures mechanisms.

But as I beleive I've also stated many times, it all depends on perspective. For those who beleive in God the study of the natural world is a study of the divine work and activity which is ongoing to this day.

The results in themselves don't point towards athiem nor thiesm directly.
If you beleive that God is the ultimtate cause of all that has occurred and is still occuring then a study of the natural world is a study of God's plan.

With this premise athiesm really has nothing to stand on, as evolution and the rest of science does not preclude God at all. Science is only left with questions and paradigms. It has no foundation. A good metaphor for science is a great structure built on very long stilts on a bottomless swamp.

Athiesm based on naturalism is neglecting this very basic fact.
So in short my position is that science is not inherently athiestic, in fact it is folly to base one's athiesm on science.

One should not base their world view on a system which only reveals part of creation.

August wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I personally did not think BGood was being pantheistic here, and if he was I'd not agree with him. Rather, I thought he was more upholding "natural theology" (perhaps an oxymoron if it is believed what is natural rules out God's existence ) which adopts the idea that since God created or unpins the world within which we live, then studying nature can also tell us something of God.

Can you maybe expand a bit on what you mean by your last sentence, and what exactly you think Bgood means?

Natural theology believes we can look at the world around us not simply to understand certain qualities of God. As Paul talks in Romans 1:20, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

I believe BGood is saying the world is ordered, and that science is a tool we use to understand how this order works. It can't understand why this order is as it is, but works within the order we observe.

August wrote:What can the scientific method, based on methodological naturalism, studying nature, tell us about God? My impression is that he is saying that we study nature to find out how it works, but that study cannot tell us anything about God.

Perhaps I have missed previous discussions but I see that BGood is simply saying "science" (the empircal variety) does not touch upon what caused the regularity we see in the world around us, but simply examines such regularity. He seems to heavily imply that such regularity could be God where he says: "How do you know that the laws of nature are not the direct act of God? Is it possible that every tiny vibration and movement of every atom is the hand of God?" Doesn't this openness go against "methodological naturalism" in allowing the possibility that God is apart of the natural processes we experience? BGood further states: "If you beleive that nature is a reflection of and a revalation of God, then the study of nature is indirectly a study of God." This appears to be natural theology—the creation can tell us something about the creator. Perhaps BGood doesn't actually think God is responsible for the regularity of the natural working of our world, but he appears to have left this open as a real possibility so far. In any case I don't wish to speak on behalf of BGood so it is perhaps best he clarifies himself.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:Perhaps BGood doesn't actually think God is responsible for the regularity of the natural working of our world, but he appears to have left this open as a real possibility so far. In any case I don't wish to speak on behalf of BGood so it is perhaps best he clarifies himself.

Kurieuo

Thank You Kurieuo,

Yes it is a very real possibility.

The more you understand how the natural sciences work the more you realize that it is nothing but a metaphor of reality.

There is no way to scientifically get at the root cause, as all you'll get is infinite regression.
But science does lead to pragmatic constructs, there is a value to this as can be seen in the applications and mathmatics which are a direct result of this type of study.

Also in another thread on the origin of life. I touched on the fact that there is no valid scientific theory for this. Although there are several promising hypothesis. It is a miracle!

Like I told Jac in another post the origin of life is like winning a lottery. It may not be a likely occurance.

Yes it is a very real possibility.

Statement of uncertainty....either it is due to God or it is not, there is no room for uncertainty.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The more you understand how the natural sciences work the more you realize that it is nothing but a metaphor of reality.

A metaphor of reality? So you are saying that the reality described by science is imagined, or has imagined meaning? Or do you mean that reality as described by science is directly analogous to the "real" reality? don't get your statement, can you maybe elaborate?

There is no way to scientifically get at the root cause, as all you'll get is infinite regression.

This again proves my point. You choose to demarcate what the limits of science are, so as to make the above statement true. But you cannot scientifically prove that statement to be true, so your statement that we cannot arrive at root causes scientifically contains an a-priori assumption on the limits of science. I hold that that is a false dilemma created by naturalism, especially when applied to origins science.

Do you then believe that science needs to conform to these:
# Guided by natural law
# Explained by natural law
# Testable against the empirical world
# Tentative in it's conclusions
# Falsifiable

But science does lead to pragmatic constructs, there is a value to this as can be seen in the applications and mathmatics which are a direct result of this type of study.

If science is a "metaphor of reality", how can you arrive at "pragmatic constructs?

August wrote:

Yes it is a very real possibility.

Statement of uncertainty....either it is due to God or it is not, there is no room for uncertainty.

I won't profess to know the truth, yes I am uncertain. We are all entitled to search for this truth.

August wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The more you understand how the natural sciences work the more you realize that it is nothing but a metaphor of reality.

A metaphor of reality? So you are saying that the reality described by science is imagined, or has imagined meaning? Or do you mean that reality as described by science is directly analogous to the "real" reality? don't get your statement, can you maybe elaborate?

It is a model which we use to describe reality. The model may work, but it is not reality in itself.

For example we can describe a computer program as a collection of objects and the interactions between the objects. We can go into great detail on these interactions and go to great lengths to hide implementations of the various methods enveloped within the objects using encapsulation and interfaces etc.

But in reality the computations occur at the bit level with the various and gates and xor gates etc. working together with a few registers to produce output. Which in turn manipulate charges in memory addresses and switch periphery objects on and off etc.

August wrote:

There is no way to scientifically get at the root cause, as all you'll get is infinite regression.

This again proves my point. You choose to demarcate what the limits of science are, so as to make the above statement true. But you cannot scientifically prove that statement to be true, so your statement that we cannot arrive at root causes scientifically contains an a-priori assumption on the limits of science. I hold that that is a false dilemma created by naturalism, especially when applied to origins science.

Do you then believe that science needs to conform to these:
# Guided by natural law
# Explained by natural law
# Testable against the empirical world
# Tentative in it's conclusions
# Falsifiable

Yes

August wrote:

But science does lead to pragmatic constructs, there is a value to this as can be seen in the applications and mathmatics which are a direct result of this type of study.

If science is a "metaphor of reality", how can you arrive at "pragmatic constructs?

Lets look at Newtonion physics. In this paradigm gravity is a mysterious force and a property of matter and mass. The calculations work.

In General Relativity gravity is a result of the bending of space time. Force is no longer a property of matter and mass but is a result of the warping of space-time by mass. The calculations also work.

We can imagine a reverse mass world in which mass is actually an absence of mattter and we are a result of bubbles in a viscous medium we call a vacuum. These calculations will also work.

As you can see the paradigms are fundamentally different yet the applications of both models to the real world helped propel not just discovery but real applications.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

August wrote:

Yes it is a very real possibility.

Statement of uncertainty....either it is due to God or it is not, there is no room for uncertainty.

I won't profess to know the truth, yes I am uncertain. We are all entitled to search for this truth.

Sure we are, and I fully support your right to search for the truth. However, that does not change my statement, there can only be one truth, either it is due to God or it is not.

It is a model which we use to describe reality. The model may work, but it is not reality in itself.

Ok, gotcha. But then how do you seperate the objective from the subjective? How do you know what is reality and what is not?

Do you then believe that science needs to conform to these:
# Guided by natural law
# Explained by natural law
# Testable against the empirical world
# Tentative in it's conclusions
# Falsifiable

Yes

How is science then scientific? What is it that makes you agree with the 5 things mentioned?

Lets look at Newtonion physics. In this paradigm gravity is a mysterious force and a property of matter and mass. The calculations work.

In General Relativity gravity is a result of the bending of space time. Force is no longer a property of matter and mass but is a result of the warping of space-time by mass. The calculations also work.

We can imagine a reverse mass world in which mass is actually an absence of mattter and we are a result of bubbles in a viscous medium we call a vacuum. These calculations will also work.

As you can see the paradigms are fundamentally different yet the applications of both models to the real world helped propel not just discovery but real applications.

I guess the same question as above applies...how do you distinguish between reality, or real applications, and the perception of reality? Wouldn't you say all reality is just a perception of reality, based on your senses?

August wrote:

It is a model which we use to describe reality. The model may work, but it is not reality in itself.

Ok, gotcha. But then how do you seperate the objective from the subjective? How do you know what is reality and what is not?

Reality is what we are trying to describe. It's whats really out there but can't quite put into words and ideas. It is what we are subjected to everyday and are a part of.

August wrote:

Do you then believe that science needs to conform to these:
# Guided by natural law
# Explained by natural law
# Testable against the empirical world
# Tentative in it's conclusions
# Falsifiable

Yes

How is science then scientific? What is it that makes you agree with the 5 things mentioned?

I don't understand what's not scientific about it?

What's your definition of science?

August wrote:

Lets look at Newtonion physics. In this paradigm gravity is a mysterious force and a property of matter and mass. The calculations work.

In General Relativity gravity is a result of the bending of space time. Force is no longer a property of matter and mass but is a result of the warping of space-time by mass. The calculations also work.

We can imagine a reverse mass world in which mass is actually an absence of mattter and we are a result of bubbles in a viscous medium we call a vacuum. These calculations will also work.

As you can see the paradigms are fundamentally different yet the applications of both models to the real world helped propel not just discovery but real applications.

I guess the same question as above applies...how do you distinguish between reality, or real applications, and the perception of reality? Wouldn't you say all reality is just a perception of reality, based on your senses?

No reality is reality. We have a limited sence of it.

A scientific theory is a model of this reality. It is subject to our perceptions and so are the results and applications of this model.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:August,

As I've stated many times, and I think you can clearly see now is that scientific study in itself is methodical and only describes natures mechanisms.

But as I beleive I've also stated many times, it all depends on perspective. For those who beleive in God the study of the natural world is a study of the divine work and activity which is ongoing to this day.

The results in themselves don't point towards athiem nor thiesm directly.
If you beleive that God is the ultimtate cause of all that has occurred and is still occuring then a study of the natural world is a study of God's plan.

With this premise athiesm really has nothing to stand on, as evolution and the rest of science does not preclude God at all. Science is only left with questions and paradigms. It has no foundation. A good metaphor for science is a great structure built on very long stilts on a bottomless swamp.

Athiesm based on naturalism is neglecting this very basic fact.
So in short my position is that science is not inherently athiestic, in fact it is folly to base one's athiesm on science.

One should not base their world view on a system which only reveals part of creation.

Bravo. This has been my beef for years in this field.

There is an inherent "leap of faith" to either position. You can qualitatively argue the merits of one over the other of course. But either position requires an acceptance on some level of faith which provides the platform from which you then subsequently build your world view and then interpret and order the universe around you to make sense.