The hole in the non-materialist's head

[LiveFreeOrDie]

On another thread, npetreley has accused scientists of being blinded to alternative hypotheses by their committment to methodological naturalism. I'd like to explore this idea a little bit and see if npetreley can show us how science ought to work.

For this little exercise, I'd like to focus on a topic not directly related to evolution: the cause of human diseases. Let's pretend that everything we know about medicine hasn't been discovered yet. Let's say that I am a rich and benevolent king and, since I am so belevolent, I want to spend some of my vast riches to help my subjects. Many of my subjects suffer and die early deaths due to disease, so I choose to embark upon a project to determine the cause of disease, with the thought that this knowledge will help me to identify ways to prevent and cure disease among my subjects.

The first thing I do as King is to summon all the wise and learned women in my kingdom to discuss all of the various hypotheses of the cause of disease and to identify the handful of hypotheses that are most promising to investigate. After many weeks, much arguing, and many boxes of the royal Krispy Kremes, the learned women emerge with their two best hypotheses as to the cause of human disease:

a) disease is caused by evil spirits who possess our bodies

b) disease is caused by microscopic life forms who invade our bodies and damage its systems

Thrilled with results of my project so far, I summon my chief science officer, npetreley. World renowned for his non-materialistic world view, I have utmost confidence that npetreley will soon be able to discover the true cause of human disease. I present him with the best hypotheses of my learned women and offer him all of the financial and capital resources of my kingdom.

Given the vast committment I have made to the project, a last minute doubt enters my mind. I seek reassurance from science officer npetreley with one last question: "Excuse me, Sir Petreley, but how is it exactly thou doth propose to determine which of the fine hypotheses is the true cause of the human diseases which doest plague my people?"

 

[ZoneChaos]

We supposed to choose one or the other here? /scratches head...

hmm.. B?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by ZoneChaos
We supposed to choose one or the other here? /scratches head...

You're supposed to answer the last question. There is a material hypotheses and a non-material hypotheses. How do we determine which one is the correct one?

 

[randman]

You falsely assume that both cannot be correct. Maybe if you got your head out of the box you placed it in, you could envision enough to make dialogue with you worthwhile.

 

[jon1101]

You falsely assume that both cannot be correct.

I think you're trying to say 'that's a false dilemma' which is rather funny. Do you honestly think that disease is caused by demon possession?

Maybe if you got your head out of the box you placed it in, you could envision enough to make dialogue with you worthwhile.

Eh? I'm not entirely sure how his ability to picture things within his mind makes talking with him worthwhile. By the way, Ad Hominum is fallacy.

-jon

 

[seebs]

The question is, LFOD, at what point (if any) would you admit that a given thing needed a different explanation? If you have something which flatly contradicts dozens of theories - unless we accept a non-materialist explanation - are you willing to consider the alternative?

I do agree that, in most cases, you can explain things using the materials of this world.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by seebs
The question is, LFOD, at what point (if any) would you admit that a given thing needed a different explanation?

That's not what I'm after. I want to understand how science works if it becomes disengaged from a materialistic methodology. How do we investigate non-material phenomena? How do we separate the valid non-material hypotheses from the invalid ones?

If npetreley and others feel right to criticise science for its methodological materialism, then surely they must have a better idea in mind.

 

[ZoneChaos]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


You're supposed to answer the last question. There is a material hypotheses and a non-material hypotheses. How do we determine which one is the correct one?

I suppose you would study both science and demonology...

 

[Jerry Smith]

That's not what I'm after. I want to understand how science works if it becomes disengaged from a materialistic methodology. How do we investigate non-material phenomena? How do we separate the valid non-material hypotheses from the invalid ones?

If npetreley and others feel right to criticise science for its methodological materialism, then surely they must have a better idea in mind.

LFOD - are you asking, then, how can these hypotheses be tested? Like, what is the first step toward testing each of these hypotheses to find out if they are true?

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
You're supposed to answer the last question. There is a material hypotheses and a non-material hypotheses. How do we determine which one is the correct one?

It's even worse than you picture! In addition to the demon hypothesis, there's several others:
(c) angels are causing disease to drive out demons
(d) God is causing disease to test us
(e) disease is an unfortunate by-product of the war between the high Heavens and the fiery Hells
(f) leprechauns are attempting to discourage people from stealing their gold

Let's throw away our materialist bias and embrace hypthesis (a). No! Wait, (c) is the only godly answer. Erm, ah... Well, perhaps randman, in all his unrecognized genius can help us poor, logical folk.

 

[randman]

"I think you're trying to say 'that's a false dilemma' which is rather funny. Do you honestly think that disease is caused by demon possession?"

I think demons do cause some diseases using bacteria, viruses, cancers, etc,...

I think we are too primitive in our technology to understand how the spiritual world intersects with the natural world, but they do intersect. I think miracles, for the most part, take place when spiritual principles are acted upon, whether by man, God, angels, or whatever, and these principles override lesser natural principles.

Faith in a revealed word of God, love, and other spiritual principles can play a significant role in the natural realm, even to the point of overturning miraculously natural, physical realities.

Likewise, demonic activity can also play a role in creating curses and diseases in a person's life.

The situation is much more complicated than either one thing or another so that often it is too difficult to understand what spiritual principles are at work.

However, when a broken leg is healed miraculously, or a blind person's eyes are opened, the deaf hear, diseases and tumors disappear, all verifiable miracles taking place in response to people beleiving and praying and laying hands on in the name of Jesus, I think it is safe to say some sort of phenomenon is taking place.

Btw, if anyone here doubts these things, I suggest you talk with a pastor, especially if he knows missionaries, who beleives in this sort of thing, and ask him if he knows of anyone who has experienced such miracles in your area that you can talk to. Talk with several pastors, especially of Charismatic churches, and investigate.

You may find some exagerration, but at the same time, you will find if you really look into it, cases of genuine miracles.

Look up some biographies of famous healing evengelists such as Aimme Simple McPhearson. You will hear of miracles, and yes, of scandals too, but take some time to actually investigate these matters, and I assure you that you can find cases, many cases, of miracles even verified by doctors.

Btw, my Dad is a doctor, and ofr many years a skeptic, and maybes still so in some areas, but even he always admitted that miracles do take place. He wouldn't say what caused them, and he did not accept the Bible, and he definitely believes in evolution, but at the same time, he said doctors see too many miracles to deny them. He would just make the point that we don't understand them, or why they occur, and he said this while deriding Oral Roberts and people that speak in tongues, lay hands on the sick, etc,...

But he told me that the medical profession generally recognizes that miracles take place that cannot be explained by medical science.

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by randman
"I think you're trying to say 'that's a false dilemma' which is rather funny. Do you honestly think that disease is caused by demon possession?"

I think demons do cause some diseases using bacteria, viruses, cancers, etc,...

Gee, maybe demons also cause your computer to work using electrons, holes, etc,...

How would you know? How does one test demons, fairies, gods, unicorns, and all these supernatural entities? All you've offered is some vague excuse about how people who believe in miracles will tell you about how miracles are true.

 

[randman]

Satman, let's stick to one thing at a time.

How would you personally know is an entirely different matter than how could you prove scientifically. I know from 2 things that demonic spirits can be related to disease. The first is the Bible, which you may reject, and the second appears to confirm the Bible. My own personal experience in either dealing with, or seeing others deal with demonic, possession (the extreme) and oppression (less extreme demonic penetration). By dealing with, I refer to casting out, and binding, or what you might term exorcism, which is word not used in my circles, but is generally the way the world describes it.

You will, of course, think such things are figments of someone's imagination, but I can guarantee that if you were present at some of these sessions, you would have a completely different outlook.

That's why I encourage people to actually look into it for themselves. It isn't as hard to find out about such things as you might think, b ut it requires you to do some research talking to real people and having an open mind.

 

[ZiSunka]

On another thread, npetreley has accused scientists of being blinded to alternative hypotheses by their committment to methodological naturalism. I'd like to explore this idea a little bit and see if npetreley can show us how science ought to work.

Oh, that's how science ought to work, but that isn't how theology works, because you can't make direct observations of God.

You guys keep trying to disprove God by using science. It can't be done. I feel sorry for you, spending so much energy on nothing!

How would you know? How does one test demons, fairies, gods, unicorns, and all these supernatural entities? All you've offered is some vague excuse about how people who believe in miracles will tell you about how miracles are true.

And all you guys keep doing is offering some vague ideas about science explains away God. But so far, you haven't offered any real proof.

I for one would like you to lay your cards out on the table. Show us exactly how science emphatically and conclusively proves that what we believe is untrue. Give us real knowledge that God is not responisble for Creation, that he is not active in today's world and that you are not sinners. Scientifically disprove the existence of God.

And do it using euclidian logic. I like euclidian logic.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Umm, Lamb's Love,

I haven't really seen anyone on this thread or in this E/C forum saying that science disproves God. (Except maybe some creationists using scare tactics.) I would love to see such a claim.

I also don't think this is the right forum for disproving God. Isn't that topic more approprate for appologetics?

 

[Starscream]

Show us exactly how science emphatically and conclusively proves that what we believe is untrue.

You believe that all mutations lead to a loss of genetic material. A simple explanation of Down's Syndrome proved you wrong here.

(Just once, I'd like to see a creationists admit he was wrong about something.)

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Umm, Lamb's Love,

I haven't really seen anyone on this thread or in this E/C forum saying that science disproves God. (Except maybe some creationists using scare tactics.) I would love to see such a claim.

I also don't think this is the right forum for disproving God. Isn't that topic more approprate for appologetics?

Are you new to this forum?

LiveFreeOrDie is proposing that science is enough of an explanation for every happening on this earth. In other words, that no God is necessary, because science has all the answers to every question. In fact, that no God is possible, because there are no unanswered questions to which God might be the answer.

 

[DonaldW112]

Originally posted by lambslove


Are you new to this forum?

LiveFreeOrDie is proposing that science is enough of an explanation for every happening on this earth. In other words, that no God is necessary, because science has all the answers to every question. In fact, that no God is possible, because there are no unanswered questions to which God might be the answer.

Uh... LambsLove both in this thread and in the plank thread we are just saying that science can't by its very nature address the supernatural. I think most in the E/C forum would agree that science can't disprove god (at least I would say it).

Now on the other hand if you tell me that the bible is literally true and certain things happened in the earth's past (single creation event, global flood, etc.). Science can tell you that the evidence does not indicate that these thing are true. If you wish to believe in them fine, but don't call it science and don't advocate teaching it in a science classroom. Also, don't call scientists blind (or with plank in eye) if science does not look for supernatural causes -- it can't. Science maybe wrong but it can't deal with a supernatural explanation -- it leads to chaos.

 

[LouisBooth]

"LambsLove both in this thread and in the plank thread we are just saying that science can't by its very nature address the supernatural. "

curious..then this means that
it can't deal with creation of the universe according to christians because it was supernautral in orgin...interesting..thanks for the thoughts.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"LambsLove both in this thread and in the plank thread we are just saying that science can't by its very nature address the supernatural. "

That is true, it can't. All theories in science must be testable and therefore must have a way to prove them wrong. Once you put God into a theory it is now untestable and you can never prove it wrong, or right for that matter.

curious..then this means that
it can't deal with creation of the universe according to christians because it was supernautral in orgin...interesting..thanks for the thoughts. [/B]

From a Christian creationist stand point of course not, have you never payed any attention in science classes. Christians simply say God did it, making their theory untestable anyway.

From a scientific standpoint, we may not be able to either since time and all other rules seem to break down in our current calculations. Without time and some rules the problem becomes chaos, and again unexplainable. See Science leaves plenty of room for God still and maybe it always will, then again maybe not.