6 ms·

Science is based on "methodological naturalism" - assuming that everything in nature have natural causes. This is the framework where science is made - it is n

by szemet 9y ago

Science is based on "methodological naturalism" - assuming that everything in nature have natural causes. This is the framework where science is made - it is not necessary to believe that it is true (that's called "metaphysical naturalism"), just work by the assumption. That's why there can be religious scientists. They apply methodological naturalism at work (they explain everything without appealing to the supernatural), but they maybe believe in virgin birth / resurrection / other miracles, so they actually believe that naturalism in the metaphysical sense is false. The successes of science may provide some confirmation that naturalism may be true in reality but of course can't prove it undoubtedly. But in practice it may work in this way: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

humanrebar 9y ago
Well put! It also explains why science cannot disprove supernatural events and why science can't categorically contradict supernatural beliefs. If you start with methodological naturalism, of course you'll end up with either open questions or naturalist explanations. People have the prerogative to disbelieve miracles, but by definition, they're not testable by hypothesis from a rational foundation of methodological naturalism.
- jasonpeacock 9y ago
  Science cannot disprove supernatural events/contradict supernatural beliefs because you cannot prove a negative. The burden is on the supporters of the supernatural events/beliefs to provide the proof. It's not science vs religion, it's rational vs irrational thoughts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Agreed on your first sentence. That's another way to think about what I said. As to the rest, it's your prerogative to place the burden of proof wherever you'd like. Though it's not necessarily the case that a hypothetical God would agree with you about your standards for proof. To think a God would be unfair to not provide clear proof about miracles, etc. is a fair point, but it's not a rational or scientific one.
  - otp124 9y ago
    It's not irrational. The absence of proof results in what is known as faith. In security, you can't prove something is secure, because you can't prove a negative. You can have reasonable faith that something is secure. We don't call that irrational thoughts. We can test for certain things, but not all things. Perhaps someone has a better analogy, but that's one example off the top of my head.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > The absence of proof results in what is known as faith. It's not. The Christian word "faith" (in Greek, pistis (1)) is better translated as "trust", "conviction", or "faithfulness". "Faith" and "belief" are also translations, but the English meanings of those words have been watered down over the years, hence a lot of this confusion. Anyway, you don't need proof to trust something, to have conviction that it's true. And having incontrovertible proof doesn't mean you don't trust something anymore. (1) https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4102 https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?str...
      - otp124 9y ago
        Perhaps that sentence was not clear, as I typed it in a hurry before my bus stop. What you described is what I meant to say. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
      - cholantesh 9y ago
        If we press enough, though, the evidence in question turns out to be divine revelation and the axiom that it genuinely happened.
      - NotAChristian 9y ago
        Many people take faith to mean to blind believe. But it is not like that at all. What does it mean to have faith? Have faith in what? When Jesus says have faith, Jesus meant have faith in what he said. In other word, believe in what he says. But what does that mean though? What Jesus meant by believe is this... Jesus: "Dude, believe me, you can save yourself from a life of misery and pain if you just do these things I am about to tell you: Do not murder. Do not kill. Do not steal. Etc. And also, remember, I love you and God loves you." But somehow, most people have misunderstood this to just mean blindly believing.

by szemet 9y ago

humanrebar 9y ago

Well put! It also explains why science cannot disprove supernatural events and why science can't categorically contradict supernatural beliefs. If you start with methodological naturalism, of course you'll end up with either open questions or naturalist explanations. People have the prerogative to disbelieve miracles, but by definition, they're not testable by hypothesis from a rational foundation of methodological naturalism.

jasonpeacock 9y ago
Science cannot disprove supernatural events/contradict supernatural beliefs because you cannot prove a negative. The burden is on the supporters of the supernatural events/beliefs to provide the proof. It's not science vs religion, it's rational vs irrational thoughts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Agreed on your first sentence. That's another way to think about what I said. As to the rest, it's your prerogative to place the burden of proof wherever you'd like. Though it's not necessarily the case that a hypothetical God would agree with you about your standards for proof. To think a God would be unfair to not provide clear proof about miracles, etc. is a fair point, but it's not a rational or scientific one.
- otp124 9y ago
  It's not irrational. The absence of proof results in what is known as faith. In security, you can't prove something is secure, because you can't prove a negative. You can have reasonable faith that something is secure. We don't call that irrational thoughts. We can test for certain things, but not all things. Perhaps someone has a better analogy, but that's one example off the top of my head.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > The absence of proof results in what is known as faith. It's not. The Christian word "faith" (in Greek, pistis (1)) is better translated as "trust", "conviction", or "faithfulness". "Faith" and "belief" are also translations, but the English meanings of those words have been watered down over the years, hence a lot of this confusion. Anyway, you don't need proof to trust something, to have conviction that it's true. And having incontrovertible proof doesn't mean you don't trust something anymore. (1) https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4102 https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?str...
    - otp124 9y ago
      Perhaps that sentence was not clear, as I typed it in a hurry before my bus stop. What you described is what I meant to say. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
    - cholantesh 9y ago
      If we press enough, though, the evidence in question turns out to be divine revelation and the axiom that it genuinely happened.
    - NotAChristian 9y ago
      Many people take faith to mean to blind believe. But it is not like that at all. What does it mean to have faith? Have faith in what? When Jesus says have faith, Jesus meant have faith in what he said. In other word, believe in what he says. But what does that mean though? What Jesus meant by believe is this... Jesus: "Dude, believe me, you can save yourself from a life of misery and pain if you just do these things I am about to tell you: Do not murder. Do not kill. Do not steal. Etc. And also, remember, I love you and God loves you." But somehow, most people have misunderstood this to just mean blindly believing.