Miracles 'n' Science

[Galloglasses' Alt]

In response, you should be aware that when investigating purported Miracles, the Church herself exhausts every explainible scientific alternative until there is none left, usually employing a third party to help her. If you mean can science, for lack of a better term 'Dissect' Miracles, no it can't, if it could, then its not a miracle. Because ultimately a miracle is something mankind has no control over. (regardless of how big or small), if we did, we could replicate it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='hamflask' post='1822910' date='Apr 2 2009, 07:48 PM']Here is the original post, for legibility's sake. Perhaps a mod could replace my first post with the following.

A fundamental assumption of science is that the universe obeys some set of regular laws, and the evidence that this assumption is correct accumulates with every scientific success. However, Christianity dictates that God is able to perform miracles, which, according to my understanding, are supernatural phenomena that disobey the regular laws that science assumes. I will concede that miracles do make sense; there is no reason God can't disobey the laws He set into place. The problem is that with miracles possible, science must be able to (or at least would like to) make the distinction between miraculous and non-miraculous phenomena. Is this possible?

Science tends to eventually explain whatever it contacts, so what was a miracle yesterday may be a mundane and natural occurrence today. Could it be possible to apply science to miracles as well? If not, why?[/quote]


i would reiterate what i said above, and others' good points as well.

i think you're getting at science's assumptions cannot allow for God, because that deny's science's assumptions. you see how circular it is. (arguably, depending on your premises)
what one should have to conclude, is that science simply needs to change its assumptions. it should take its base proposal, namely the seeking of truth, and allow for the possibility of God. that it won't, is limiting.
ie, to define its assumptions as necessarily precluding God, is limiting. it's not scientific in the sense that it should be, in the sense that it should be defined, anyway.

[hamflask]

Interesting replies. Excellent!

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat']For the sake of discussion, if it is possible, can you supply any evidence or reason for these two premises concerning "Science" and "Christianity"?[/quote]
My claim that science assumes constant natural law follows from the fact that scientific theories are expected to make accurate predictions. If the natural laws that the theories model are not constant, making accurate predictions is impossible. My claim about miracles being supernatural is simply my understanding of the difference between miracles and non-miracles. If you disagree (which it seems you may), what is the difference? Could finding a $20 bill that I didn't really need be considered a miracle? Is the matter entirely subjective?

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat']Could science offer explanations for miracles, I would personally say yes, in as much it does not fall into the heresy of naturalism, that all things are merely natural.[/quote]
By "explanation", I actually meant "theory". This implies that miracles would be about as predictable as gravity. Does this change your answer?

[quote name='Veridicus']I have noticed in my own experience studying biology in undergraduate and even during this past year of studying mediclne, that scientists are more than willing to accept weakly formed scientific answers rather than coming anywhere near the possiblity of assenting to a miraculous explanation. In my honest opinion, accepting bad science as an explanation is just that: bad science. But it seems to be the prevailing trend among scientists who, as a philosophical a priori, assume a natural explanation exists for all observable phenomenon.[/quote]
Scientists must never be satisfied with a miraculous explanation; it doesn't make predictions. If a scientist ever concludes "this phenomenon is miraculous, therefore there is nothing more to be done here", that is essentially closing the door to an explanation that is actually [i]helpful[/i], ie, able to make predictions. This makes assenting to a miraculous explanation in fact bad science.

The supposed miracles posted in this thread are interesting cases, but they are not what interests me. They are isolated and rather esoteric cases, and reproducibility is a key factor in studying a phenomenon effectively. What I'd like to know is what exactly are the factors that make something a miracle. Would transubstantiation of bread and wine be considered miracles? That sounds like something that could be studied quite rigorously. If provided with sound evidence that transubstantiation is real, I would most certainly rethink my beliefs (but it wouldn't stop me from trying to fully understand the process of transubstantiation!). Why hasn't this been done? Is it simply sacrilege, or is it somehow impossible?

[hamflask]

Sorry for the double post, but I may as well address this now.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1822964' date='Apr 2 2009, 08:39 PM']i think you're getting at science's assumptions cannot allow for God, because that deny's science's assumptions. you see how circular it is. (arguably, depending on your premises)
what one should have to conclude, is that science simply needs to change its assumptions. it should take its base proposal, namely the seeking of truth, and allow for the possibility of God. that it won't, is limiting.
ie, to define its assumptions as necessarily precluding God, is limiting. it's not scientific in the sense that it should be, in the sense that it should be defined, anyway.[/quote]
Science essentially assumes that everything is explainable. It has to, otherwise any scientist could just give up on her studies and exclaim, "This is unexplainable!" Science doesn't have much to say about a deistic god, but if the god is able to affect the universe in a detectable way, this falls under the realm of science, and science must attempt to explain it. Since the Christian God is by definition ineffable (correct me if I'm wrong), there is a contradiction here. We shouldn't be able to predict divine intervention, but that's exactly what science must attempt to do. Therefore, in my opinion, there is a fundamental conflict between science and many religions, and the existence of miracles is the focus of the conflict.

This conflict in itself doesn't prove that science is correct of course; I'm not using circular reasoning. The fact that science has proven so good at what it does, however, is strong evidence that science is correct.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Scientists must never be satisfied with a miraculous explanation; it doesn't make predictions. If a scientist ever concludes "this phenomenon is miraculous, therefore there is nothing more to be done here", that is essentially closing the door to an explanation that is actually helpful, ie, able to make predictions. This makes assenting to a miraculous explanation in fact bad science.[/quote]

i don't think anyone's saying science has to say it's a miracle and stop searching.
part of the scientific method as we're or i'm definiing it, is to keep searching no matter what. they disprove negatives, not proving positives, scientists. there's nothing wrong with taking that mindset to God, necessarily, as someone who doesn't tend to beleive in God. (i'm not sure its' appropriate for a believer, but)
the scientist should say "the theory of God or whatever this outside entity is, has not been disproven. there's evidence in its favor. the God hypothesis is sound. (note: i do not think intelligent design should be taught in school, even as a hypothesis- except maybe philophsy class- but this is another post, and gets into the politics of the situation)

as to the point about not being able to reproduce a miracle, i don't see the problem. ie, in my system, not all things need recreateable, but it's the best standard for a proposition to be proven not false (again nothing proven true).
if God were to do miracles, as i think he does, that doesn't mean they would have to be recreatable to be worthy of consideration etc. imagine all the truths one would be denying, just because they can't be recreated. imagine, if God did exist, and these things were happenings, for the sake of argument,,,, you'd never be have a way of saying "this seems true" or whatever, just cause it happens to escape capture, to not be reproducable. that seems pretty crazy to me, to just throw all that sort of phenomenon out the window.

but again, if you're just saying you want to keep science separate, there's really no magic in how one devises the systems, or chooses to say "this is miracle territory, it don't belong with science stuff". it's all arbitrary, the distinctions of the systems, in so far as one might entertain that miracles are true yet say it doesn't belong in X science system.
ie, "this belong in science. this belongs in miracles. v. we'll create a system that includes miracles under the umbrella of "science" --- is really pretty arbitrary
now, 'miracles' is a loaded word. i can see why you'd think we'd have to stop searching cause we've proven it, cause that's what's connotated with the word etc. but, it doesn't have to be that way.


with that said, i don't think entertainiong God or X as a possiblity is diluting science, to approach it from that perspective, if you definedthe sytem to allow for it.
cause, how ya define it's all arbitrary.

if you used mroe definiitve conclusions from things like "this is a miracle so we stop looking", then you'd have a very important reason to keep the systems separate.

if your point is to ask how things ought to be, and recognize that it's arbitrary, well, i'd just point to all that i've said so far, and others.

Edited April 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

right, i mean i don't think the argument is necessariy circular. you'd argue, science can't allow for God, cause that is not very methodical etc. this isn't circular. i guess what im trying to say is, if you insist that "defining the system as necessarily not able to entertain God, because the system itself cannot allow for that", then that is circular if you accept the premises i was saying earlier.
it just depends on the assumptions involved

if you say you absolutely cannot include miracles under the umbrella of science, i think it's circular in a sense, cause you could include it, and to deny that is to say "we can't define it that way, cause it defies the definitions" etc. if you recognize that miracles should be entertained, but don't put it in that system, you're not circular in yoru system cause you think it keeps the integrity of science in tact better, not that it's necessarily better etc.
only in a sense, not in a definitive way, circular.
depending on the presmises of the persons involved.

i'm having a hard time trying to explain this. i think this is where scholars would break out some latin phrase to clarify a distinction or something.

Edited April 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Could finding a $20 bill that I didn't really need be considered a miracle? Is the matter entirely subjective?[/quote]

to respond for him.
i don't see how this would say 'miracle'.
you find a dollar bill. that indicates someone lost it. you have population A who prays and population B who doesn't, and A asks for flesh to grow, B doesn't, and it looks like an phenomenon outside of A or B has caused something to happen to A. it's not necessarily teh case, but it looks that way.

i mean, really, step back and think about this.

jesus performs a miracle in front of your eyes. "meh, no different than me finding a 20 dollar bill on the ground".
and, on side note, jesus doesnt' do the miracle again, or such that you can quantify it etc. does that mena you deny it happened? no. does it mean you don't include it under teh auspice of science? well, depends on how you set up your systems, but you cant just throw it out in any system, just because you can't reproduce it at your own will.

you might have a point though, if this is your point, that 'miracle' would need defined better-- cause who's to say finding the 20 doesn't fall into the definition of a vaguely defined miracle? or we all know people who think everything's a miracle--- those folks would be precluded under the right definitions.

Edited April 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[hamflask]

My point is that divine intervention and science are fundamentally incompatible. Science must assume everything in the natural world is explainable scientifically (for reasons I have already stated), and the divine is by definition unexplainable. Therefore, science must assume there is no divine intervention.

Unless perhaps this divine intervention actually [i]is[/i] scientifically explainable, but doesn't that violate Christian belief? You shouldn't be able to predict acts of God, right? Conversely, science shouldn't allow hypotheses that incorporate things defined to be unexplainable, because hypotheses like these can't make predictions.

[hamflask]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1823165' date='Apr 2 2009, 11:38 PM']to respond for him.
i don't see how this would say 'miracle'.
you find a dollar bill. that indicates someone lost it. you have population A who prays and population B who doesn't, and A asks for flesh to grow, B doesn't, and it looks like an phenomenon outside of A or B has caused something to happen to A. it's not necessarily teh case, but it looks that way.[/quote]
If an experiment like this could be determined, then that would constitute scientific proof that prayer is effective. [i]Somehow[/i]. It doesn't actually say anything about God. Perhaps we have psychic abilities manifested through prayer. However, if the Bible (or some other religion's teachings) can reliably make predictions that science can't, a rational person must conclude that science can't actually explain everything. So far, this has not happened, which is strong evidence in favor of the validity of science.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1823165' date='Apr 2 2009, 11:38 PM']jesus performs a miracle in front of your eyes. "meh, no different than me finding a 20 dollar bill on the ground".
and, on side note, jesus doesnt' do the miracle again, or such that you can quantify it etc. does that mena you deny it happened? no. does it mean you don't include it under teh auspice of science? well, depends on how you set up your systems, but you cant just throw it out in any system, just because you can't reproduce it at your own will.[/quote]
Well, in a case where the event isn't reproducible, science can neither prove nor disprove anything about it convincingly. The event would of course be very convincing to me, and I may be inclined to conclude that Jesus is divine and therefore a fundamental assumption of science is incorrect (that everything is explainable). But this would be less convincing the further you were from me in time and on the word-of-mouth chain. Evidence that can't convince most people who contact it is not very strong evidence.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i see nothing wrong with your reasoning.

if you think that "miracle" cannot in any system fall under "science", all properly understood as i explained earlier, then i do take issue with it.
you can insist that it's incompantiable at a very core level, in that it's just not a good idea, but not in some definitively final without a doubt level.

cause, you're excluding all those things that are true, but just can't be reproduced. this goes well beyond miracles as well. i can't htink of a good one, but if you see an alien, it doesn'tmean they don't exist just cause ya can't reproduce the alien. it just means ya can't reproduce him. the aliens come at random tmes and purposefully evade us. doesn't mean they don't exist.
i see the point in saying "we should have the system keep its integrity, and the ebst way to do that, is to say we'll wait till it's reproduceable". but, you have to account for that stuff somehow.
if someone wanted to put it under the science system, while acnowledging all the limits of the information, i don't see how one could necessarily say that's wrong in a definitive sense.
just in a "very strongly shouldn't be risking diluting science" sense.
if you know what i mean.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]If an experiment like this could be determined, then that would constitute scientific proof that prayer is effective. Somehow. It doesn't actually say anything about God. Perhaps we have psychic abilities manifested through prayer. However, if the Bible (or some other religion's teachings) can reliably make predictions that science can't, a rational person must conclude that science can't actually explain everything. So far, this has not happened, which is strong evidence in favor of the validity of science.[/quote]

right. and the fact that it looks like an outside phenomenon is occurring means that it just might be an outside phenomenon made it happened, as i said earlier (it doesn't have to be God per se but it does have to be something like that. and it could in fact be that, God.)
but, also as i said earlier, it could be something other than God, or something like hte mind etc, and nothing is proven that well.
i don't think you disagree with this, just noting.

you might disagree on the point though, that 'this has not happened'. it has happened. miracles (or at least things that look like them) happen to people man. not in controlled systems (if you thought i meant it was a controlled sytem, that's not what i meant), but they do. even dawkins etc admit it. they just have other ways of explaining it. (see my first point, where i refute all his points).

i think your ultimate points are that thesethings happen to atheists too, or that there's a decent nonGod explanation.

Edited April 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[philothea]

[quote name='hamflask' post='1823169' date='Apr 2 2009, 11:46 PM']My point is that divine intervention and science are fundamentally incompatible. Science must assume everything in the natural world is explainable scientifically (for reasons I have already stated), and the divine is by definition unexplainable. Therefore, science must assume there is no divine intervention.[/quote]

One of my philosophy textbooks stated that as a primary assumption: everything that happens obviously has happened, and thus is a natural event, whether we can understand the rules behind it or not. If there are miracles, they're part of the system.

However, modern science is not so absolute as you make it out. For example quantum mechanics only works with probabilities, and to the best testing we have been able to manage, this appears to be how the universe actually works. We can't predict cause -> effect precisely, only on average. (It gets even weirder than that, with observer effects and non-locality, but I'm sure you see the point. )

The idea of a clockwork universe -- where you could determine how events would unfold if only you knew the exact state of everything -- was proven wrong over a hundred years ago.

[quote name='hamflask' post='1823169' date='Apr 2 2009, 11:46 PM']Unless perhaps this divine intervention actually [i]is[/i] scientifically explainable, but doesn't that violate Christian belief? You shouldn't be able to predict acts of God, right? Conversely, science shouldn't allow hypotheses that incorporate things defined to be unexplainable, because hypotheses like these can't make predictions.[/quote]

I don't know that having divine intervention be scientifically explainable would actually violate anything. It would depend on the explanation! Would have to be pretty sophisticated given the results we see, though.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]If there are miracles, they're part of the system.[/quote]

exactly.
tho, to be more 'scientific' minded, i'd say 'if there are miracles, or things that look like miracles, they are part of the system'

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah i fall back to what i said earlier
[quote]but again, if you're just saying you want to keep science separate, there's really no magic in how one devises the systems, or chooses to say "this is miracle territory, it don't belong with science stuff". it's all arbitrary, the distinctions of the systems, in so far as one might entertain that miracles are true yet say it doesn't belong in X science system.
ie, "this belong in science. this belongs in miracles. v. we'll create a system that includes miracles under the umbrella of "science" --- is really pretty arbitrary
now, 'miracles' is a loaded word. i can see why you'd think we'd have to stop searching cause we've proven it, cause that's what's connotated with the word etc. but, it doesn't have to be that way.[/quote]

the only way i'd take issue is if he said it's absolutely in no way or form a possibility to say that miracles could be incorporated into the system.

i mean, i don't believe in unicorns, but if someone wanted to say that their possibility should be included id say sure.
do the unicorns prove the things we see as miracles? perhaps, to a stern scientist, that is.

i think there's agreement on the issues, people are just talking past each otehr.

Edited April 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

faith in a unicorn is just a personal decision a scientist would make. it'd be based on facts and reason.
as is faith in God. it's based on facts and reason, and is a personal decision. things that look like miracles, and other things, compel some people to believe.
that's all.
there's no threat to science or vice versa, necessarily. (if the faith is correct

to make a point though. aliens visit us but we can't prove it. i've never seen it, but many people do and there's circumstantial evidence, good ones. if you beleive, you get taken to a land of paradise by the aliens. (i don't think God is so base, even though this is typical of a simple christian or muslim etc understanding of heaven etc, but it makes teh point). you have godo reason to believe, so why don't ya? course, this gets into thorny issues about 'faith' v. 'hope' v. 'reason to beleive' etc. but, at least, you should 'beleive' at least at some level, that aliens exist, if all the circumstantial evidence is true.

that's another example too. circumstantial evidence works in a corut of law. doesn't prove it as true, as is a good point. but.
perhaps all anyone's saying is that circumstantial evidence should be included.
a good faith beleive in that evidence should be accounted for too, somehow, etiehr in the system, or outside.
to deny the belief in that evidence is artificial, like putting your head in the sand.