Is Neutrality in the fields of Natural Science Possible?

[Dan Brooks]

So that is the question, in the title, that I am posing for discussion. Why or why not? Does it matter? Why or why not? I have a position, may or may not reveal it, depends on how this goes, or if it even does. The great news about this topic is, you need not be a Scientist or Scientifically inclined or extremely informed to answer.

I don't think it really is possible for neutrality to exist in the fields of science because we live in a fallen world. If man were not fallen and sinful in nature, he perhaps could look at evidence and allow for at the very least the possibility of supernatural influences, and the purposeful act of God in what the evidence shows.
But since man in his natural state is fallen and sinful, and against God, at enmity with Him, and does not, nor cannot discern spiritual things, he will in no way look for, or see, any evidence of the supernatural as being a cause, or even a possible cause of anything he sees and studies (no matter the field of study). And if a believer points out, "See? This is evidence for God here.", he will say, "I see no such evidence."
The natural man cannot discern spiritual things unless and until he is quickened by the Spirit of God and drawn to Christ by the Father and given the faith to believe on Him. Then his lights turn on, and he can assert, with the other believer that, "Yes , this IS evidence for God!"
Therefore, those who are yet in their sinful natural state, will never accept the supernatural as an explanation. Neither can the believer who has been quickened not see the evidence for the supernatural.
That's my humble opinion anyway.

 

[Hethatreadethit]

Maybe I can help, it means to set aside assumptions, presuppositions. Because I am not a Scientist, or in a position of first hand knowledge or experience, it is difficult to say whether it means setting aside a person's whole worldview or lens through which phenomenons are interpreted. Is this possible? Does the naturalist Scientist approach his research of the natural, laying aside his worldview of naturalism open to the possibility of supernaturalism, or does his profession by definition limit the scope of his observations?

Philosophy speaks of Empirical vs. Impirical. Empirical is the observing of things around us, the things we see around us. Spiritual man would be the opposite. I believe the physical things around us have spiritual counterparts.

It talks about trees, spiritually in the bible, and trees cannot live without light. Do you think photosynthesis is a formula for life? Even spiritually?

I think natural science supports the supernatural, although the one cannot be observed in the flesh, it's counterpart is before us everyday when the sun rises, and when the moon reflects the light thereof.

 

[NobleMouse]

So that is the question, in the title, that I am posing for discussion. Why or why not? Does it matter? Why or why not? I have a position, may or may not reveal it, depends on how this goes, or if it even does. The great news about this topic is, you need not be a Scientist or Scientifically inclined or extremely informed to answer.

Good question! I propose it is difficult to be completely neutral (objective) on any matter where subjectivity exists. Scientific conclusions, I would suppose, are formed on the basis of research, observation, testing of theories/hypotheses, etc... Observation itself is not purely neutral. My wife places a vase with flowers in it on a stand at the end of a hallway in our home. She sees the flowers, their colors, whether the colors reflect the season, etc... I look at the same thing and check to make sure the stand is aesthetically pleasing - that the stand centered, that the stand is not touching the wall where it could leave a dent if bumped (and I'll later have to spackle and paint over), that the vase is centered on the stand, that the stand is evenly balanced, etc... Her filtered view draws her attention to the beauty of the flowers (and almost without argument is better than my view), whereas my view draws my attention to the structure, stability, placement of these objects. If asked to write reports about the flowers/vase/stand, they would most likely be different reports right? We have different filters, different biases, different focuses... different presuppositions.

This matters because we will draw different conclusions based upon our filters. This is an especially good thing in science I would suggest, because if we all looked at the same thing and came to the same conclusion (right or wrong) how would we ever know we were right OR wrong if nobody else had a different filter?

 

[Hethatreadethit]

In truth, science is much more progressive and truthful than religion because it does not have to address the problem of sin and faith. Science can successfully reach as far as the human mind can fathom within its' empirical realm. A conscience is not necessary for science.

Religion is a different matter. According to my understanding, according to the scriptures, we humans are in a glass jar, limited to the condition of our carnal being.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I believe there is a limit to understanding our natural world, and it seems that for every problem solved only brings more questions and problems.

BUT, the greatest challenge to those who want to find Spiritual answers, well, it lies outside of our control. This question will plague you the rest of your life, that is: how will you deal with sin? How will you even begin to research this matter, or will you just plead ignorance and surrender your mental capacity over to the present way of thinking? If you are a real scientist and not given to carnal bias, you will search out this matter. What is more important? The study of objects and things that still conclude in death, or the wisdom of God, that reportedly leads unto life?

A real scientist will not just readily accept the consensus of opinion without searching the evidence and finding the facts out for himself.

The problem of man is his bias of sin that is taken to advantage by the outer forces of darkness.
Satan takes advantage of our weaknesses.

Our lab is founded on humility, even mercy, and the recognition that sin is not good and it brings death and it has killed the innocent, even Christ!

For the Spiritual scientist, He will find that the Sun(God) has commanded His power to convert flesh H(CO2) with His Word (H2O) to form spiritual man.

Blessed are the trees who keep the commandments of the sun.