What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Hans_W]

True philosophy and theology will not conflict with true science.

What do you mean by “true philosophy”, “true theology” and “true science”?

The first two are very vague, but true science is limited to natural causes and phenomena. If we need to postulate something we can’t yet explain, like dark matter, we at least work on the assumption that we’ll find out sooner or later.

Same with consciousness, if you want to work on that problem from a science point of view.

The problem is that many religious people want to have a hard proof that there is a God. Science gives us hard proofs, so we look at science to supply us with a proof.

Sorry folks, that’s not how science works. You need to rely on your belief.

If life was planned by God, it had to be intelligently designed.

It didn’t just pop into existence as some say the un verse just popped into existence from nothing.

Peter’s objection still stands.

There’s is no adequate scientific rebuttal to Meyer’s position.

“Intelligent Design” is a very cleverly ‘designed’ phrase. Of course, we Christians see the universe as intelligently designed, but in a way that it’s ability of unfolding itself was built into the very fabric of matter, space and time.

According to the Christian philosopher Howard Van Till, God has created the world with what he calls “functional integrity”. What he means is that the created world has no functional deficiencies and no gaps in its economy that would require God to act directly and immediately.

Also read up on what the late Ernan McMullin, a philosopher and Catholic priest, had to say on this topic, and John Stek and many other Christian philosophers.

Concerning Meyer’s claims, the “scientific rebuttal” you want to see would take more than a few lines. Have a look how religious scientists answer his claims. I can recommend Ken Miller, a Catholic biologist, but also Francis Collins and Denis Lamoureux, to mention two more.

Gordon Glover has a very good 16-part lecture on YouTube on science education for Christians. I can highly recommend it: youtube.com/watch?v=Fperp1Mezt0&list=PLKXHrrTkAsPhmbm1ONYY5x2XPzakVeNbm

The problem is that scientists with a naturalistic worldview (ontological naturalistic) try to convince us that science confirms universal naturalism. And the general public, not burdened with too much philosophical and scientific understanding, falls for it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The first self-replicating molecule was generated by random chance, and things evolved from there. Again, please read my article.

Well, there it is in a nutshell. It sure looks designed, and you can’t prove it happened by chance.

In that case, philosophy trumps science, since there is no science that proves chance, whereas design appears the logical choice.

Even the evolutionist Dawkins admits TO THE APPEARANCE OF DESIGN.

“It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology— and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.” Richard Dawkins

 

[Al_Moritz]

Well, there it is in a nutshell. It sure looks designed, and you can’t prove it happened by chance.

In that case, philosophy trumps science, since there is no science that proves chance, whereas design appears the logical choice.

The first self-replicating molecule was generated by random chance, but cumulative natural selection, which is not a random process, worked from there. Evolution, even from the simplest proto-cell onward, is NOT a random process, even though it is based on random mutations as substrate. What is so hard to understand?

There is a lot in nature that happens by chance. Ever heard of quantum mechanics or random motion of molecules under thermodynamics? Do these things not fall under God’s providence since they are governed by chance? Of course they do:

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.

(Communion and Stewardship, paragraph 69.)

 

[Al_Moritz]

“Intelligent Design” is a very cleverly ‘designed’ phrase. Of course, we Christians see the universe as intelligently designed, but in a way that it’s ability of unfolding itself was built into the very fabric of matter, space and time.

According to the Christian philosopher Howard Van Till, God has created the world with what he calls “functional integrity”. What he means is that the created world has no functional deficiencies and no gaps in its economy that would require God to act directly and immediately.

Also read up on what the late Ernan McMullin, a philosopher and Catholic priest, had to say on this topic, and John Stek and many other Christian philosophers.

Concerning Meyer’s claims, the “scientific rebuttal” you want to see would take more than a few lines. Have a look how religious scientists answer his claims. I can recommend Ken Miller, a Catholic biologist, but also Francis Collins and Denis Lamoureux, to mention two more.

Gordon Glover has a very good 16-part lecture on YouTube on science education for Christians. I can highly recommend it: youtube.com/watch?v=Fperp1Mezt0&list=PLKXHrrTkAsPhmbm1ONYY5x2XPzakVeNbm

The problem is that scientists with a naturalistic worldview (ontological naturalistic) try to convince us that science confirms universal naturalism. And the general public, not burdened with too much philosophical and scientific understanding, falls for it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The first self-replicating molecule was generated by random chance,

Proof? More begging the question. It is impossible to derive such proof. It can’t be done. We’ve had this debate before, as I recollect.

That life began by a random event means there was no Divine intent in Creation for life to exist. We just got lucky to be the latest product of that random event.

Do you believe that? Does the Church teach that?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Proof? More begging the question. It is impossible to derive such proof. It can’t be done. We’ve had this debate before, as I recollect.

That life began by a random event means there was no Divine intent in Creation for life to exist. We just got lucky to be the latest product of that random event.

Do you believe that? Does the Church teach that?

Let me repeat:

There is a lot in nature that happens by chance. Ever heard of quantum mechanics or random motion of molecules under thermodynamics? Do these things not fall under God’s providence since they are governed by chance? Of course they do:

“But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.”

(Communion and Stewardship, paragraph 69.)

So yes, indeed the Church teaches that random events can fall under Divine Providence. And with the origin of life I have no problem whatsoever regarding a random event, since there were probably so many RNA molecules under prebiotic geological and atmospheric conditions that a random self-replicating molecule may have been statistically inevitable.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What do you mean by “true philosophy”, “true theology” and “true science”?

As Catholic speaking to Catholic, it is impossible for the truth to be divided against itself.

What is true in philosophy should also be true in science and philosophy. What is true in science, cannot be contradicted by philosophy or theology. What is true in theology cannot be contradicted by philosophy and science.

For Catholics to say that God planned (intelligently designed) the world, and then to say that the world operates without intelligent design, is to speak a tautology. To believe that miracles occur, and then to say that there can be no miracles in the natural order (indeed, where else would they occur?) because God does not “swoop down,” is to speak a tautology. To say that God fashioned man and breathed a soul into him, and then to say that man is a product of natural selection, is to speak a tautology.

Isn’t there not something like a split personality in religious people who think like this?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So yes, indeed the Church teaches that random events can fall under Divine Providence. And with the origin of life I have no problem whatsoever regarding a random event, since there were probably so many RNA molecules under prebiotic geological and atmospheric conditions that a random self-replicating molecule **may have been **statistically inevitable.

It was most judicious of you to put that “may have been” in there, since it could also read “may not have been statistically inevitable.”

 

[Al_Moritz]

It was most judicious of you to put that “may have been” in there, since it could also read “may not have been statistically inevitable.”

Well, I have no scientific reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Al_Moritz]

As Catholic speaking to Catholic, it is impossible for the truth to be divided against itself.

What is true in philosophy should also be true in science and philosophy. What is true in science, cannot be contradicted by philosophy or theology. What is true in theology cannot be contradicted by philosophy and science.

For Catholics to say that God planned (intelligently designed) the world, and then to say that the world operates without intelligent design, is to speak a tautology. To believe that miracles occur, and then to say that there can be no miracles in the natural order (indeed, where else would they occur?) because God does not “swoop down,” is to speak a tautology. To say that God fashioned man and breathed a soul into him, and then to say that man is a product of natural selection, is to speak a tautology.

Isn’t there not something like a split personality in religious people who think like this?

Who has claimed there can be no miracles when it comes to the regular development of God’s creation? No believer does, but those who do not stick to biological Intelligent Design but rather to real science do not find any evidence for such miracles – even though real miracles like the Resurrection or the Eucharist have occurred/still occur.

Your ‘split personality’ problem does not lie in the actual views of others, but in your distorted perception of the views of others.

---

At this point I am done debating this topic. If you want to continue twisting words and views, and want to continue to play shadow games with yourself, be my guest. I’m out.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is a non-issue. Of course chemical bonding cannot explain the sequence of bases along the spine of the DNA molecule – if it could, life could not work!!! If the information was dependent on the physics of attraction, you could not even get to sufficiently varied information!

Meyer here sets up a straw man that subsequently he tears down – just like atheists set up straw men about God’s nature that they subsequently tear down. Neither is helpful in any way. Honestly, since listening to that passage my esteem of Meyer has dropped even more.

The first self-replicating molecule was generated by random chance, and things evolved from there. Again, please read my article.

I have a post related to this topic on another thread.

Just so you see the connection…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12544802&postcount=6

 

[tdgesq]

Rats learn about fast acting poisons by observing their mates who eat it and quickly die. That is why only very slow acting poisons work on rats. This is an informal, unconscious application of the “scientific” method - or empiricism.

So now all sensory knowledge obtained by rats is an “unconscious” application of the scientific method. What that means is (1) the rat makes an observation, which raises an unconscious formulation of a question; (2) the rat makes an unconscious hypothesis that explains the unconscious formulation of the question; (3) the rat then unconsciously tests the unconscious hypothesis; and finally the rat unconsciously analyzes the results of the experiment and reaches an unconscious conclusion.

A “question” is defined as a sentence in interrogative form, whether asked of oneself or another. A sentence requires language, which rats don’t have; primarily because they lack consciousness.

A “hypothesis” is a proposed explanation based on initial observation. An explanation is a statement, reason or justification for a belief. There are no statements without language. Reason and justification presuppose consciousness as well as a whole host of other attributes that rats don’t have.

A “test” is a critical evaluation process to determine truth. There are no unconscious critical evaluations.

“Analysis” do I really need to give you the definition at this point?

So yes, if we redefine the English language then we can have rats that engage in the “scientific method.” If this is how the scientific community uses the term, then it should be relatively easy for you to link to a peer reviewed article that animals utilize the “scientific method” in order to know anything about objective reality. No? Oh.

The past is not part of the objective reality. The past does not exist any more. As long as one remembers it, and remembers it correctly there is no problem for that particular person. Of course how can he be certain that his memories are accurate? This is the weakness of all the testimonial-based “epistemologies”. How can one know that the person giving the testimony is correct? He can be honestly mistaken, or can play a joke on you. This weakness cannot be eliminated by asking “someone else” - since that just pushing the uncertainty one step back. That is why the physical evidence is always superior to the testimonial ones. Of course they can be misinterpreted, but that is the problem for the one who makes the interpretation.

If the past is not part of objective reality, then we must reject every scientific discovery ever made as being part of objective reality. Why? Because they all happened in the past. Even now as I write this there are scientific tests being conducted. But guess what? The moment after they happen, they are in the past. Even if I conduct my own scientific experiment, the moment after it’s finished, it’s in the past. According to you, none of them reflect objective reality. But it gets worse under your analysis.

All those past peer reviewed scientific journals may be full of lies and deceit. How can I know? If you trust what someone else tells you, then it doesn’t reflect objective reality. Right? On the other hand, according to your criteria, not even my own recent experiences constitute objective reality. I know what I had for lunch yesterday (I didn’t use the scientific method to figure that out btw) but it isn’t objective reality because it happened yesterday?

You just destroyed objective reality. Good work.

Of course. The scientific method is just the formalized version of empiricism. Science simply **adopted **this method, since it is the only way to investigate the objective external reality. You are welcome to use either terminology, I will understand what you mean.

As it turns out, neither of us get to redefine the English language. See, how this works is that human beings get together and use various language terms and symbols in order to establish a common communication network. These common terms then get picked up by publishers who publish things called dictionaries. Some of these are specialized terms like - say - “the scientific method” or “empiricism” that may show up in a biological or philosophical dictionary. Now if empiricism is defined to be the scientific method and vice versa, then fine. But they aren’t defined that way - at all. All you are doing is making the term “scientific method” useless by redefining it as “empiricism.”

Why are you trying to redefine the English language?

 

[Hans_W]

As Catholic speaking to Catholic, it is impossible for the truth to be divided against itself.

What is true in philosophy should also be true in science and philosophy. What is true in science, cannot be contradicted by philosophy or theology. What is true in theology cannot be contradicted by philosophy and science.

You don’t have any absolute truth in philosophy, nor in science. Any particular theology will claim to have absolute truth. You can’t argue about the Resurrection within Catholic theology. Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, is all based on induction and that can’t give us absolutes.

So, your second paragraph doesn’t make any sense at all.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Trent Horn does a good job on this:
catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/prayer-science-and-the-existence-of-god

Yes, his article is well written and quite reasonable. But he did not answer all the problems which need to be addressed and he made some errors. And he made a few remarks, which made me smile. Here is one: “In fact, it’s been said that God always answers our prayers—it’s just that sometimes the answer is ‘no’…” The understatement of the year. “Sometimes”? How about “always”? There are millions of prayers every day from heartbroken mothers concerning their sick and dying children, and nothing happens. Any human, if he had the resources similar to God, who had the information available to God, and would act as indifferently as God does would be summarily declared to be an “evil” or at best an “uncaring” being.

Of course he is perfectly right in pointing out the problems with the lack of proper control groups. Now to say that God purposefully evades the detection is a pretty serious accusation, by implicitly saying that God is a “cheater”, that he falsifies the experiment to stay “hidden”. And since it is also asserted that God is unable to lie, and the deliberate falsification of the experiment is a form of lying… there is a serious problem for the theists - which problem they usually pretend not to exist.

Of course the lack of efficacy of the prayers does not formally “disprove” God’s existence - as the author rightly points out - but it does disprove what the believers say, namely that “God cares about us, and therefore he does answer intercessory prayers”. That simply does not happen.

He is also correct to say that one should not commit the fallacy of the “proving” the antecedent, but he makes a logical error. From the proposition “A → B” it does follow that “~B → ~A”.

So his final argument:

1. If God does not exist, then prayers made in scientific studies will not be answered.

1. Prayers made in scientific studies are not answered, therefore God does not exist.

needs to be rephrased:

1. If God exists and cares about us, then one can reasonably can expect prayers to have a measureable effect.

1. Prayers have no measurable effect, therefore either God does not exist, or does not care.

And this is a perfectly valid logical reasoning. From “A → B” it **does **follow that “~B → ~A”. The author “forgot” to point this out.

But really, please read the article; Trent Horn does a much better job than I do.

Yes, it was worth to read it, despite its errors. Thanks for the recommendation.

A miracle might be a more likely thing to apply the scientific method to…

Well, there is a “legend” that there are “miraculous” healings happening at Lourdes. Now that could be examined by performing a proper, double blind experiment, exactly as the author pointed out. A positive outcome would not “prove” God’s existence, but at least it would make one think: “well, maybe there is something to this…” - but all the tests come back with a negative result.

The point is that it would be futile to “prove the negative” - that God does not exist. Atheists are happy to point out the discrepancy between the believers’ assertions about God’s goodness and caring and the actual state of the existence in this world.

 

[Hee_Zen]

So now all sensory knowledge obtained by rats is an “unconscious” application of the scientific method.

Sure, just like the cave-men. I agreed that empiricism came first, which was then refined and adopted by science. What is your point?

I know what I had for lunch yesterday (I didn’t use the scientific method to figure that out btw) but it isn’t objective reality because it happened yesterday?

How do you know that your memory is accurate? I don’t doubt that it is probably accurate, but that does not help me to decide if your recollection is correct or not. Do you have an objective epistemological method to allow me to decide if your memory is accurate? If, yes, let me have it.

Does the past “still” exist? Obviously, no. The objectively existing external reality encompasses everything that exists. Not what could exist, or what existed, or what could have existed… Fortunately for us, many events leave a physical “footprint” behind so we can have a highly reliable estimate of “what might have happened”. But if there is no such physical evidence, it all boils down to testimony, which is either accurate of not.

Why are you trying to redefine the English language?

Why do you pretend not to understand what I wrote? There is a good reason for “past tense”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Let me repeat:

So yes, indeed the Church teaches that random events can fall under Divine Providence.

.

Well, all events fall under Divine Providence, don’t they?

You’ve heard about the sparrows?

“Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.” Matthew 10:29,31

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You don’t have any absolute truth in philosophy, nor in science. Any particular theology will claim to have absolute truth. You can’t argue about the Resurrection within Catholic theology. Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, is all based on induction and that can’t give us absolutes.

So, your second paragraph doesn’t make any sense at all.

I’m sorry you don’t see the sense of saying, in the second paragraph, that truth is truth no matter whether it is in science, philosophy, or theology. Truth cannot contradict truth.

If theology tells us the universe was created and we believe this to be absolutely true, for example, it cannot be true in science that the world is uncreated.

So the Catholic who entertains the notion that the world is uncreated is flat out rejecting everything about creation in Genesis. His science and theology are at loggerheads. Can you tell me how they are not?

If our Catholic theology tells us that miracles are not only possible, that God “swooshed down” and did something spectacular, as Al might put it, but even necessary (as we know from Scripture and the life of Jesus that miracles have been performed and still are performed) then we must entertain the possibility that the inception of life was indeed a miraculous event intelligently designed by Divine Providence.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Truth cannot contradict truth. . .

Science can reveal bad theology as theology reveals bad science.
Taking each area of knowledge beyond what it can describe leads to illusion.
That God created the universe, life and man cannot be known by science.
Man, as anything but a bag of skin containing biochemical processes, disappears if we rely solely on natural science for answers.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Well, all events fall under Divine Providence, don’t they?

Of course, I claimed no different. You continue to put words into my mouth that I didn’t say. It gets a bit old, really.

I can’t wait () for your next “correction” which inevitably will come (shrug).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course, I claimed no different. You continue to put words into my mouth that I didn’t say. It gets a bit old, really.

I can’t wait () for your next “correction” which inevitably will come (shrug).

I’m sorry you feel that way. I won’t bother you any more.