What is science?

[Jet Black]

"...however the properties and nature of that creator are unknown to us".

well some people would say they know, however other people would say they know differently. Since there is no real intersubjective evidence for anyone's assertations as to whether there is a deity of any kind or not, the jury is still out on that one.

 

[USAF]

Jet Black





. As long as you know I beg to differ on that

 

[Arikay]

What do you mean, "atheistic" approach?

I guess atheists are no longer allowed to believe in the super natural, or unfalsifiable things, I better alert the EAC.

Science is no more atheistic than it is theistic. Its agnostic, it doesn't even bother to touch things that cant be falsified. Yes it does look for only "nature" causes for things, but thats because of how it works, as long as you realize where science starts and where it stops, then its fine. Besides, I missed the part in theism where it says god didn't use nature or things testable by science.


As far as saying "therfore god" is concerned, saying "god did it" is ok, as long as you go beyond that, and look at the How. How god did it. However, saying "god did it, that settles it, thats the final answer" is no way to go about things, and if that was acceptable in science, I dont think many would be here today, because modern medicine would be lacking, since.

How did he get sick?
"demons did it, that settles it, thats the final answer"
How did he get well again?
"God did it, that settles it, thats the final answer"

and say goodbye to most medicine.

Lucaspa



*

However, much of human existence lies outside of science. Therefore science can't answer these questions.

*



there is a lot of question science can’t answer, as you stated “science is the study of the physical universe” as you know my definition is mans universe. But that is of a spiritual interpretation. If you look at science as broad (atheisticly) then will we ever know all the answers? See science is limited to our domain of thought (universe) is that all there is? Or is that what we wish to accept? That’s why I say science focuses on an atheistic approach to testing and experiments. Which is true





*

An example: science will be able to answer the question: can we clone a human being? Probably with a "yes".

*



science can answer that because we can do it through artificial Insemination *test tube) or stem cell development or what not. But the question remains, that is by mans doing and as such your playing God to a level, but you can never perfect healing. Or will these clones have souls? Or will they just be a product of mud and water?

 

[Jet Black]

As long as you know I beg to differ on that

I would assume you are in the category of people who say they know... you might even go so far as to say the bible is intersubjective evidence, but I wouldn't say it is evidence.

 

[USAF]

Jet Black





What you base your facts on is what you see with your eyes. If you don’t see it, you question it. You see no physical evidence. As for me, I know he’s there. So what evidence would I be in search of?

 

[USAF]

Arikay










you have atheists and you have agnostics. Atheists do not believe in a God. If you do not believe in any Supernatural deity, what’s the alternative?

 

[Jet Black]

Jet Black





What you base your facts on is what you see with your eyes. If you don’t see it, you question it. You see no physical evidence. As for me, I know he’s there. So what evidence would I be in search of?

obviously none. however your conclusion is not nescessarily "correct" since it is entirely subjective.

 

[Arikay]

Exactly, God and deity.
atheists can believe in supernatural things, but to be an atheist they need to not believe in or lack belief in a deity, nothing more.

Arikay










you have atheists and you have agnostics. Atheists do not believe in a God. If you do not believe in any Supernatural deity, what’s the alternative?

 

[Jet Black]

well I am a naturist, but there isn't an icon for that, which is a pity.

 

[lucaspa]

there is a lot of question science can’t answer, as you stated “science is the study of the physical universe” as you know my definition is mans universe. But that is of a spiritual interpretation. If you look at science as broad (atheisticly) then will we ever know all the answers? See science is limited to our domain of thought (universe) is that all there is? Or is that what we wish to accept? That’s why I say science focuses on an atheistic approach to testing and experiments. Which is true

The point I'm making is that it is not "man's universe". It is God's universe. To say anything else as a Christian is to deny that God created. It may be "man's method" of studying that universe, but the universe is God's. Your definition denies the very God you are supposedly defending.

I'm also making the point that it is not valid to look "at science as broad (atheistically)". Science is a limited form of knowing and not all questions fall into science. Atheists who look at science as the only form of knowing are making a mistake.

Now, the confusing part here is that the hypothetico-deductive method used by science is applicable to all forms of inquiry -- pay attention here -- where people can agree on what constitutes data. Thus, the "scientific method" of making hypotheses and testing them can be used, for instance, in Biblical scholarship where everyone agrees that the text of the Bible constitutes data. The Documentary Hypothesis accepted by nearly all Biblical scholars is the hypothetico-deductive method. It's not science, but it does use the same basic technique as science does.

Science is agnostic. See my signature. The approach to experiments focuses on the material. Because as you set up experiments that is all you can do. You do that too when you test electrical circuits. You only test the material causes, don't you? Why?

Because you can't test for the supernatural ones.

I'm in biology, so my example is biological, but we can construct one in engineering easily enough

You want to find ALL causes/entities necessary for plant growth. So you go out and get a number of plants. You put them in the following conditions:
1. Sunlight, water, soil, air
2. Sunlight, water, soil, but in a clear box where the air has been pumped out.
3. Sunlight, water, no soil, air.
4. Sunlight, no water, soil, air
5. A darkened box with no sunlight, water, soil, air.
This scientific protocol will tell you if these 4 entities/causes are necessary for plant growth. You can add others if you wish but you will follow the same scientific protocol of having a control where you KNOW the entity is absent and compare it to an experimental where you KNOW the entity is present.
Now comes the kicker. How about the supernatural? Where is my control for that? Which plant can I point to and say "this one has NO supernatural in it?" I can't. Therefore I am limited to looking at only material causes that I can set up "controls" for.
Now you know why science is limited to the material. And now you also know why science is agnostic and can't comment on the existence of deity or its role in nature.

To say "science is atheistic" is to accept the basic statement of faith of atheism and say that natural causes are the only causes. But there is nothing from the methodology of science that justifies this. While you are supposedly fighting atheism, it is ironic that you accept the basic faith of atheism. But don't worry, all creationists do the same thing.

An example: science will be able to answer the question: can we clone a human being? Probably with a "yes".

*



science can answer that because we can do it through artificial Insemination *test tube) or stem cell development or what not. But the question remains, that is by mans doing and as such your playing God to a level, but you can never perfect healing. Or will these clones have souls? Or will they just be a product of mud and water?

Why did you ignore my example of a question science can't answer?

Now, you have a different question: can we ever perfect healing? Possibly. We can never have "eternal" life because somewhere, sometime, some contingent event (accident) is going to kill you. And, if nothing else, the eventual fate of the universe will kill us because entropy will be maximum. However, can we manipulate the body such that it is healthy until that event? Probably.

Since "soul" right now is not something science can test, the scientific answer is "we don't know." Are we anything other than material beings now? Science doesn't know. You believe we are not. But you don't have the objective, intersubjetive evidence to know that.

That's the problem many theists have. They are not clear on the demarcation line between what they know and what they believe.

 

[lucaspa]

Jet Black





. As long as you know I beg to differ on that

Notice that Jet Black said intersubjective evidence. Theists have evidence that convinces them, but if it isn't intersubjective, it isn't science and isn't going to convince people who don't have that evidence. So Jet Black is correct. Outside of belief, the jury is out.

 

[lucaspa]

What do you mean, "atheistic" approach?

I guess atheists are no longer allowed to believe in the super natural, or unfalsifiable things, I better alert the EAC.

Science is no more atheistic than it is theistic. Its agnostic, it doesn't even bother to touch things that cant be falsified.

Arikay, if atheists believe in the supernatural, they are no longer atheists. Unless you are qualifying it and saying "ghosts" are supernatural but not deity.

Science does bother to touch things that can't be falsified. Using falsifiability as a criteria to tell science from non-science doesn't work. No Boundary is not falsifiable, yet it definitely part of science. Quantum splitting isn't falsifiable, but is part of science. Ditto mulitverse or bubble universe.

Besides, I missed the part in theism where it says god didn't use nature or things testable by science.

Didn't miss it. It isn't there. Except for creationists who say so.

As far as saying "therfore god" is concerned, saying "god did it" is ok, as long as you go beyond that, and look at the How. How god did it. However, saying "god did it, that settles it, thats the final answer" is no way to go about things, and if that was acceptable in science, I dont think many would be here today, because modern medicine would be lacking, since.

How did he get sick?
"demons did it, that settles it, thats the final answer"
How did he get well again?
"God did it, that settles it, thats the final answer"

and say goodbye to most medicine.

USAF, please pay attention here. The "Goddidit" without specifics is pretty useless. And not even used by creationists. Notice that ICR and AiG have a pretty specific how that Goddidit.

 

[lucaspa]

What you base your facts on is what you see with your eyes. If you don’t see it, you question it. You see no physical evidence. As for me, I know he’s there. So what evidence would I be in search of?

How do you "know"? Don't you also have something "seen" with your eyes or at least seen by people you trust? After all, don't you believe in the Resurrection from the accounts of people who have seen the resurrected Jesus?

So it's not that Jet Black's criteria is essentially different from yours. It's that 1) Jet Black doesn't see what you do and 2) distrusts that the people in the past really saw what they say they saw.

 

[ej]

well I am a naturist, but there isn't an icon for that, which is a pity.

Isn't it a bit cold in Germany in November?

 

[USAF]

Jet Black



*

obviously none. however your conclusion is not nescessarily "correct" since it is entirely subjective.

*



which is why you call it Faith Mr. Black



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Arikay



*

atheists can believe in supernatural things, but to be an atheist they need to not believe in or lack belief in a deity, nothing more.

*

so what supernatural things would they believe in then?

 

[USAF]

Lucaspa





*

The point I'm making is that it is not "man's universe". It is God's universe. To say anything else as a Christian is to deny that God created. It may be "man's method" of studying that universe, but the universe is God's. Your definition denies the very God you are supposedly defending.

*



Gods Universe is not Mans Universe, Gods universe includes spirituality and the dimensions thereof, its his creation. Mans Universe only studying the domain of man’s science and his interpretation of that universe.





*

I'm also making the point that it is not valid to look "at science as broad (atheistically)". Science is a limited form of knowing and not all questions fall into science. Atheists who look at science as the only form of knowing are making a mistake.

*



then what would atheists believe as the alternative?



*

pay attention here -- where people can agree on what constitutes data. Thus, the "scientific method" of making hypotheses and testing them can be used, for instance, in Biblical scholarship where everyone agrees that the text of the Bible constitutes data. The Documentary Hypothesis accepted by nearly all Biblical scholars is the hypothetico-deductive method. It's not science, but it does use the same basic technique as science does.

*





well I am not a Biblical scholar so I wouldn’t know what they do or use pertaining to proving the Bible, or if they use their interpretations based on a set of principles they wish to prove about science. For instance disproving evolution, do they search the Bible for their own interpretation to disprove it? or believe in their faith of the Bible?



*

Why did you ignore my example of a question science can't answer?

*



because what man can do is not what God can do. I do not recognize a clone as a creation of God.







*

How do you "know"? Don't you also have something "seen" with your eyes or at least seen by people you trust?

*





you know the stories of Elisha? When the Servant arose he saw the enemy surrounding his City with horses and Chariots, the servant asked him, what do we do? they outnumber us. Elisha told him don’t fear, those who are with us outnumber them. The servant didn’t understand this, Elisha prayed that his eyes might be opened. And the Servants eyes were opened and he saw the mountain covered with horses and chariots of fire. What was the servants eyes opened to? They were opened to the Universe of God, the spiritual and physical dimension. How did Elisha know they were there? He may not have seen the Army of Angels, but he knew they were there. What evidence did he have that they were there?

 

[Arikay]

I think Ill answer USAF with your post.

If Supernatural is something that goes beyond natural forces (pretty much making it outside of science) then yes, an atheist can believe in the supernatural and still be an atheist. An atheist is someone who does not believe, or lacks a belief in god or gods, no more, no less.
An atheist can believe in things that are out of the realm of science, like an afterlife, or souls, etc.
I myself am an atheist taoist. I dont think the tao can be proven or disproven by science anymore than god. Making it pretty much outside of science. But it is not a god or deity, or even similar to one, so it would be a different supernatural belief than a deity (notice, I mentioned that it was a belief, not a fact )

Yes your right, defining the boundary of science as things that are falsifiable does not always work, Although I would say it works most of the time. I should have said that it doesn't bother to touch things like Deity.

Arikay, if atheists believe in the supernatural, they are no longer atheists. Unless you are qualifying it and saying "ghosts" are supernatural but not deity.

Science does bother to touch things that can't be falsified. Using falsifiability as a criteria to tell science from non-science doesn't work. No Boundary is not falsifiable, yet it definitely part of science. Quantum splitting isn't falsifiable, but is part of science. Ditto mulitverse or bubble universe.


Didn't miss it. It isn't there. Except for creationists who say so.


USAF, please pay attention here. The "Goddidit" without specifics is pretty useless. And not even used by creationists. Notice that ICR and AiG have a pretty specific how that Goddidit.

 

[LorentzHA]

Well, you ever notice how all of a sudden particles keep getting smaller and smaller? Do you ever thing we will ever find the end?

Are the particles actually "getting smaller" or are we discovering smaller particles?

You must be a Billy Bob Thornton Fan, too? Where did you get that pic from, his website?

 

[USAF]

Arikay







so if you believe in a Supernatural afterlife, then how do you believe it to be created?

 

[USAF]

LorentzHA

you know what I mean



my picture? http://www.goszen.pl/gif/fotogr2.jpg Well that depends on your belief of the Supernatural then doesn’t it?