Does The Supernatural Exist?

[Bikeemikey]

You're talking about the interpretation of evidence, but however it is interpreted it is first observed and experienced through our senses otherwise we wouldn't even notice it.

 

Observation is not science. It is only part of science and while it is a necessary part of the scientific process, observation alone is not sufficient to claim that something has been observed scientifically.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

From our point of view you and others who agree with your definition of science are the ones who have a special definition of "science" which excludes God and anything related to God, and we have been saying there is no need and no good reason for that exclusion. God can be observed scientifically just as anything and everything else can, and there is nothing that is outside the realm and influence of God.

 

I dont disagree with you on this statement, in as much as it is theoretical. While God may be observable, it is not the case that this observation is currently able to be conducted in a scientific manner. This is an obvious weakness in science. One day im sure it will be overcome.

[The Nehor]

My science concerning the origins of life include the Creator, do yours?

 

No, even though I believe the Creator was instrumental in creating life.

 

Also there is no "your science". You can't redefine it to coopt the word to support whatever you want. Science has limits and an actual definition. You can't fundamentally alter it to fit your argument. I can't argue that geometry is useful in literary criticism and then expand geometry to include literature.

[Ahab]

Again, the only way this view is plausible is if you dramatically redefine the way in which the word scientist is understood.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientist

There is a big difference between observing empirical data and scientifically observing empirical data. All humans are involved in data observation (at least hopefully) however, not all are involved in observing that data scientifically.

Here's a short summary of how to observe something "scientifically":

C hoose something to observe, and observe it.

H ypothesize about what you observe.

E xperiment to test your hypotheses.

E xamine the results of your experiments.

R ecord your results and procedures.

S hare your records and testimony with others.

You can do that with everything, including observing and learning from God.

CHEERS!

[thesometimesaint]

From our point of view you and others who agree with your definition of science are the ones who have a special definition of "science" which excludes God and anything related to God, and we have been saying there is no need and no good reason for that exclusion. God can be observed scientifically just as anything and everything else can, and there is nothing that is outside the realm and influence of God.

 

Science does not exclude God. It just has no way to include him and still be science. Including him in science is like discussing Mushroom cultivation and High Rise building construction in the same sentence. Observation is an important PART of the scientific method, but it can not be the only part of it. IE; I observe the sunrise and sunset. For thousands of years people thought the earth was flat because of that observation. It took an ancient Greek, not Christopher Columbus, to show that the earth was round like a ball.

[thesometimesaint]

Here's a short summary of how to observe something "scientifically":

C hoose something to observe, and observe it.

H ypothesize about what you observe.

E xperiment to test your hypotheses.

E xamine the results of your experiments.

R ecord your results and procedures.

S hare your records and testimony with others.

You can do that with everything, including observing and learning from God.

CHEERS!

 

You are leaving out important parts like review the literature on the subject in question. Make sure your hypothesis asks the question you want answered. Allow for a critical examination of your methods and conclusions.

 

So that would be CHREEMSS.

[Rob Osborn]

Im not sure many scientists would agree with you.... to be outside of science is simply to not yet be explainable via science. Scientific laws may well apply, it is just impossible to accurately measure so there is no way of knowing.

Let me bring you up to date. This is from the leading proponents of science education in our schools- the NCSE

 

 

The historical sciences seek to understand how things came to be by applying the laws and theories (natural mechanisms) of the present world, as discovered by the inductive (theoretical) sciences, to the past. The Darwinian mechanism (the interplay of mutation, genetic recombination, reproduction and natural selection) can be studied in the present day by the theoretical sciences and applied to the past, to explain the arrays of fossils and various features of anatomy, physiology, development, etc. of present day organisms. The process is completely analogous to a forensic scientist trying to reconstruct a murder (the specific conditions) which, in conjunction with known scientific laws and theories, will explain the evidence gathered from the corpse and the crime scene. Postulating a supernatural demon that struck down the victim through some sort of "spell" would be laughed out of court. Postulating supernatural intelligent intervention is completely inappropriate in any science, inductive or historical!

 

Here is a quote from the ACLU in defending Darwinism and excluding ID or creationism in school-

 

 

All three movements share the idea that all living species in their present form can be attributed to a creator or designer that is supernatural or not knowable by scientific means.

Here again from the NCSE-

 

 

I was not really dealing with the testability of “intelligent design” (ID), though that is the impression one might get from Dembski’s essay. In this public lecture, I discussed both traditional “creation science” and neocreationism, and compared them. I talked about Behe’s irreducible complexity idea, and Dembski’s Design Inference, and illustrated the religious motivation for fighting evolution. I am not especially concerned with whether ID is testable. I look at the testability of ID the same way I look at the testability of traditional young-earth creationism (YEC): YEC can make empirically or logically or statistically testable statements (the earth was covered by a body of water, all living things are descended from creatures that came off a boat) but its foundational claim that everything came into being suddenly in its present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator is not a scientifically testable claim. I shall let theologians argue over whether special creationism is good theology, but invoking omnipotent supernatural causes puts one smack out of the realm of science, protestations of the validity of “theistic science” notwithstanding. One cannot use natural processes to hold constant the actions of supernatural forces; hence it is impossible to test (by naturalistic methodology) supernatural explanations (Scott 1998). Whether a supernatural force does or does not act is thus outside of what science can tell us.

Similarly, ID can make empirically or logically or statistically testable claims (certain structures are irreducibly complex; by using probability arguments like the “design filter” one can detect design) but the foundational claim that a supernatural “intelligence” is behind it all is not a scientifically testable statement. (And please, let us be grownups here: we are not talking about a disembodied, vague “intelligence” that might be material, we are talking about God, an intelligent agent who can do things that, according to ID, mortals and natural processes like natural selection cannot. Not for nothing does Dembski say that ID is the bridge between science and theology.)

 

[Bikeemikey]

Here's a short summary of how to observe something "scientifically":

C hoose something to observe, and observe it.

H ypothesize about what you observe.

E xperiment to test your hypotheses.

E xamine the results of your experiments.

R ecord your results and procedures.

S hare your records and testimony with others.

You can do that with everything, including observing and learning from God.

CHEERS!

 

How about Establish procedures that control for externalities.

 

Being able to Repeat and achieve the same results in the same or highly similar circumstances.

 

So now we are at CHREEMSSER - 

 

I do not think science is what you think it is.

[teddyaware]

My science concerning the origins of life include the Creator, do yours?

I sympathize with you. I must say, considering all the many, many verses of scripture that speak clearly of God's very proactive involvement in the creation, I can't understand how or why two active LDS folks could somehow end up in such a strange, unproductive conversation. One of the main elements needed in order for there to be productive dialogue is the establishment of common ground. If significant areas of common ground cannot be established, there is little hope for meaningful and edifying dialogue.

 

Edited February 26, 2014 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

You are leaving out important parts like review the literature on the subject in question. Make sure your hypothesis asks the question you want answered. Allow for a critical examination of your methods and conclusions.

So that would be CHREEMSS.

While not specified in my summary, because I was trying to make it brief, what you mentioned is a part of my process with CHEERS.

[Ahab]

How about Establish procedures that control for externalities.

Being able to Repeat and achieve the same results in the same or highly similar circumstances.

So now we are at CHREEMSSER -

I do not think science is what you think it is.

All part of CHEERS, and yes it is what I think it is even though you do not agree.

It's not as if all scientists agree with each other, ya know.

[thesometimesaint]

Let me bring you up to date. This is from the leading proponents of science education in our schools- the NCSE

 

Here is a quote from the ACLU in defending Darwinism and excluding ID or creationism in school-

 

Here again from the NCSE-

 

In this country we can't impose religious beliefs by the state. Separation of Church and State and all that. There are a few countries that do it, and I'm not at all sure you would  like living there. \

 

Science doesn't care what your(my) religion is.

[thesometimesaint]

While not specified in my summary, because I was trying to make it brief, what you mentioned is a part of my process with CHEERS.

 

But you are leaving out important parts. IE: If I say I live in the US(and I do). Do I mean I live in the United States of America or the United States of Brazil? Without more information it is impossible to tell.

[jkwilliams]

In this country we can't impose religious beliefs by the state. Separation of Church and State and all that. There are a few countries that do it, and I'm not at all sure you would  like living there. \

 

Science doesn't care what your(my) religion is.

When we lived in Utah, my kids attended a charter high school. Shortly after the school year started, my daughter came home with a book called "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism." At first I thought it was a good idea to present the students with both sides of the debate over evolutionary theory. Then I found out they weren't getting both sides, but just the anti-evolution side in the form of this book, which was their only text about evolution. I started reading it, and it turned out to be nothing but pure BS and religious pseudoscience. I complained rather loudly to the administration, and I was told I wasn't the only parent to complain, but I was the only one who had read the book cover to cover.

I like the idea of allowing students to get both sides of things, but presenting pseudoscientific crap as legitimate science is unacceptable, and it's even worse when you provide that in place of real science.

[jkwilliams]

But you are leaving out important parts. IE: If I say I live in the US(and I do). Do I mean I live in the United States of America or the United States of Brazil? Without more information it is impossible to tell.

Probably the United States of Mexico.

[Ahab]

To try to make my point another way:

Instead of labeling something as "supernatural" or thinking what pertains to God is none of their business, scientists should simply seek to observe and disvover things, all things, to gain knowledge and learn as much about the truth as they can without drawing any lines in the sand while thinking they can only go that far and no further.

[thesometimesaint]

When we lived in Utah, my kids attended a charter high school. Shortly after the school year started, my daughter came home with a book called "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism." At first I thought it was a good idea to present the students with both sides of the debate over evolutionary theory. Then I found out they weren't getting both sides, but just the anti-evolution side in the form of this book, which was their only text about evolution. I started reading it, and it turned out to be nothing but pure BS and religious pseudoscience. I complained rather loudly to the administration, and I was told I wasn't the only parent to complain, but I was the only one who had read the book cover to cover.

I like the idea of allowing students to get both sides of things, but presenting pseudoscientific crap as legitimate science is unacceptable, and it's even worse when you provide that in place of real science.

 

I haven't read that particular book, but I do know its kind. I think it could be acceptable in an HS AP class or college level religions of the world type class. If presented along with other creation myths, However keep it well away from anything involving actual science.

[jkwilliams]

To try to make my point another way:

Instead of labeling something as "supernatural" or thinking what pertains to God is none of their business, scientists should simply seek to observe and disvover things, all things, to gain knowledge and learn as much about the truth as they can without drawing any lines in the sand while thinking they can only go that far and no further.

The problem with drawing lines in the sand is that eventually repeated data is observed that cannot be explained by prevailing scientific theories and paradigms. This is when what Thomas Kuhn calls "scientific revolutions" happen. In short, science has no choice but to eventually deal with observable phenomena and adjust accordingly. Whether there is a God or not or how involved He is in our universe is beyond the ability of science because belief in God is not based on repeatable observed data. As mfbukowski would say, trying to introduce discussions of faith and God into science is a category error.

[jkwilliams]

I haven't read that particular book, but I do know its kind. I think it could be acceptable in an HS AP class or college level religions of the world type class. If presented along with other creation myths, However keep it well away from anything involving actual science.

The problem is that it isn't an actual discussion of the creation myth but instead purports to poke holes in evolutionary theory, apparently in the belief that if you can just create enough doubt about Darwinism, readers will be forced to fall back on traditional creation narratives. The book is awful, and thinking about it still makes me angry that the school forced me to wade through it.

[thesometimesaint]

To try to make my point another way:

Instead of labeling something as "supernatural" or thinking what pertains to God is none of their business, scientists should simply seek to observe and disvover things, all things, to gain knowledge and learn as much about the truth as they can without drawing any lines in the sand while thinking they can only go that far and no further.

 

That sounds nice, and hopefully someday God will explain exactly how he did it. However how would such a idea be actually implemented today? Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. Moreover most religions, including the LDS one, claim God is omnipotent. Science is about controlling and then testing for the "X". If "X" is an omnipotent force there is no controlling for it. Therefore scientists, including the LDS ones, can not put God into their formulas.

[Rob Osborn]

No, even though I believe the Creator was instrumental in creating life.

 

Also there is no "your science". You can't redefine it to coopt the word to support whatever you want. Science has limits and an actual definition. You can't fundamentally alter it to fit your argument. I can't argue that geometry is useful in literary criticism and then expand geometry to include literature.

Mainstream science posits that there must be no God in explaining how life came into existence. So either science is wrong or your God and religion is wrong. Make the choice, which is it? You cant have it both ways.

[jkwilliams]

Mainstream science posits that there must be no God in explaining how life came into existence.

Absolutely untrue. Science is not concerned with the existence of God or not. God's existence makes no difference to science, which is why scientists who believe in God can and do work with unbelievers all the time and discover the same things.

So either science is wrong or your God and religion is wrong. Make the choice, which is it? You cant have it both ways.

That is a false dichotomy that explains a lot.

[thesometimesaint]

The problem is that it isn't an actual discussion of the creation myth but instead purports to poke holes in evolutionary theory, apparently in the belief that if you can just create enough doubt about Darwinism, readers will be forced to fall back on traditional creation narratives. The book is awful, and thinking about it still makes me angry that the school forced me to wade through it.

 

When my daughter-in-law took a beginning sociology class in college I had a related but different problem. The book that was used would have been fine as a graduate level book, but there was so many assumptions about what she already knew. It practically drove my nuts trying to explain it to her. Adding in serious editing of her papers she wrote for internal consistency and just plain old facts. She eventually got an "A" in the class, but it was a hard slog for both of us.

[thesometimesaint]

Mainstream science posits that there must be no God in explaining how life came into existence. So either science is wrong or your God and religion is wrong. Make the choice, which is it? You cant have it both ways.

 

No it doesn't. Science doesn't address God at all. Scientists are free to believe or not believe in God as they choose. Which one of your children do you love?

[jkwilliams]

No it doesn't. Science doesn't address God at all. Scientists are free to believe or not believe in God as they choose. Which one of your children do you love?

If nothing else, I think I have a better understanding of where Rob is coming from. Such a fundamental (no pun intended) misunderstanding of science explains a lot of what I've heard from him.