God should be kept out of scientific Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FidesSpesCarita said:
The scientific principle cant prove a physical absolute either.
Click to expand...
I agree. So what? Science is not in the business of absolutes. Neither can it measure that which is non-physical.
FidesSpesCarita said:
Look at the amount of information on Gravity and the various materials (theoretical and hypothetical) that contradict it. Or superconductors that in some circumstances completely defy old scientific maxims of electrical conductivity. Or non-newtonian fluids.

“Science” is a good way to come up with reasonable suppositions for what will occur in a certain set of circumstances. But it is far from perfect. And I say that as a microbiologist/molecular biologist so I have some training in this.
Click to expand...
I never argued that it was perfect.
 
buffalo said:
If science wanders aimlessly than it is useless.
Click to expand...
Its useful for investigating physical reality. It reveals more knowledge to us about the existence of “physical particularities” than philosophy by itself can. Philosophy is good for revealing the existence of absolutes or things that refer to existence in general (the metaphysical study of being qua being). But logic cannot tell us much about the existence of physical particularities. I cannot know by logic that a base ball exists. We can only know this by direct observation. I cannot know with any genuine degree of precision what the attributes of atoms are (the atomic structure). Its is true that the scientific principle deals only in probable truths, but the principle itself gives us a greater degree of knowledge than what can be afforded to us by philosophy alone. I am not saying that philosophy isn’t involved. Of course it is. But the method of its investigation is focused on that which can be either observed or measured.
 
Barbkw said:
Atheism should be kept our of scientific questions.
Click to expand...
I agree, if you are referring to a belief about the absolute nature of objective reality. But methodical naturalism is legitimate.
 
Then science should be kept out of this forum whenever it is used to “explain” events in the Bible. Often the same people who insist God should be kept out (He can’t be, by the way) of science are the same people attempting to use what they call science to tell people: “Nope. According to science, this or that event in the Bible could not have happened as described.”

Science can’t study God? Fine. Then science cannot explain the work of God as recorded in the Bible. Jesus gave sight to the blind instantly. No technology was involved in raising Lazarus from the dead.

God bless,
Ed
 
FidesSpesCarita said:
I understand, but your attempt to force the word “science” to fit in only one context is a bit… silly, wouldnt you say?
Click to expand...
The reality is, i never tried. I was speaking about “empirical science”. I was not speaking about science as Thomas Aquinas would understand it. I would say that trying to force supernaturalism into the scientific method is a bit silly as well, if not outrageous and damaging to the Christian faith.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
It is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical question. Gods existence is not a scientific question; its a philosophical question. That science is grounded upon philosophical beliefs, is irrelevant to the fact that the scientific method is designed to investigates physical reality in its particularities.
Click to expand...
You’re the one who is not understanding. I’m saying that whether or not the material world exists is a matter that is significant to science even though it cannot answer it.

-Prophecy
 
edwest2 said:
Then science should be kept out of this forum whenever it is used to “explain” events in the Bible. Often the same people who insist God should be kept out (He can’t be, by the way) of science are the same people attempting to use what they call science to tell people: “Nope. According to science, this or that event in the Bible could not have happened as described.”
Click to expand...
Are you a six day creationist? I don’t think our Pope is.:rolleyes:
 
Prophesy said:
You’re the one who is not understanding. I’m saying that whether or not the material world exists is a matter that is significant to science even though it cannot answer it.

-Prophecy
Click to expand...
Its philosophically significant in that if the material world does not exist, then there is nothing for the scientific method to analyse; in fact the empirical method becomes meaningless and useless. But I don’t see how this disproves my argument? The empirical method requires realism, it is not proof of it.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Its philosophically significant in that if the material world does not exist, then there is nothing for the scientific method to analyse; in fact the empirical method becomes meaningless and useless. But I don’t see how this disproves my argument? The empirical method requires realism, it is not proof of it.
Click to expand...
It does require nature to exist, but cannot prove its existence satisfactorily. But this doesn’t mean that it should be separated from God. For much of its existence, empirical science has been seen as another branch of theology (understand the Creator’s creation, or even cosmologically coming to understand the Creator through His creation).

-Prophecy
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
The reality is, i never tried. I was speaking about “empirical science”. I was not speaking about science as Thomas Aquinas would understand it. I would say that trying to force supernaturalism into the scientific method is a bit silly as well, if not outrageous and damaging to the Christian faith.
Click to expand...
Ah, but that is the first time you placed the “empirical” caveat on your discussion of science. I still disagree with your initial assertion that God should be kept out, but your argument has more weight under that strict definition.
MindOverMatter2 said:
Its philosophically significant in that if the material world does not exist, then there is nothing for the scientific method to analyse; in fact the empirical method becomes meaningless and useless. But I don’t see how this disproves my argument? The empirical method requires realism, it is not proof of it.
Click to expand...
The empirical method
Empirical method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a theory or derive a conclusion in science. It is part of the scientific method, but is often mistakenly assumed to be synonymous with the experimental method.
Click to expand...
The empirical method is not science in totum but is merely a piece, a section, of science. Perhaps the OP should have stated that we should keep God out of the empirical method?

But that is like saying that we should keep Henry Ford out of the study of the Ford corporation…
 
It is important to remember. We are creatures, not the creator. Our ability to do science is limited by this fact.
 
Prophesy said:
It does require nature to exist, but cannot prove its existence satisfactorily.
Click to expand...
It cannot prove its objective existence at all, full stop.
Prophesy said:
But this doesn’t mean that it should be separated from God.
Click to expand...
Again that depends on the context in which one says that it should not be separated from God. My argument is that God is not a genuine object of empirical science. We cannot legitimately know Gods existence through it. We can however give “philosophical” arguments for God based upon or informed by legitimate empirical knowledge; but that would not qualify it as a scientific theory or even a genuine scientific hypothesis.
Prophesy said:
For much of its existence, empirical science has been seen as another branch of theology (understand the Creator’s creation, or even cosmologically coming to understand the Creator through His creation).

-Prophecy
Click to expand...
So what? This requires a knowledge of God before the fact of empirical science. From the perspective of theology, science gives us knowledge about how God made the universe. From the perspective of methodical naturalism, the empirical method does not tells whether or not God exist; since that question is not an objective of empirical science. The question of God is an objective of philosophy and theology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top