[George Affleck]

Originally Posted by noguru

His point is that science is not all they do. Are you being purposely obtuse now?

Not at all.

I am pointing out that ascribing anthropomorphisms to 'science' as if it stands alone without the scientist is not a logical arguement but is perfectly typical of a sloppy mind.

His comment was: "The answer is quite simple. Science can't consider the supernatural. But scientists can."
He is the one being obtuse.

If there were no scientists, there would be no science. Science, done properly or improperly, only emanates from people who have all kinds of presuppositions.

Science does not think for itself or draw its own conclusions. It is as dependent on a body of humans as your reflection in the mirror is dependent on you.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The answer is quite simple.

Science can't consider the supernatual.
But scientists can.

Scientists do science.

One of my kids, when he was about seven, discovered that a professional clown lived on the next block. He told me that it couldn't be a real clown, because he'd seen him mowing his lawn, and he looked just like a regular person. To a little kid, clowns always have white faces with big red noses and floppy shoes.

Apparently, some people have that concept for scientists.

[George Affleck]

Originally Posted by icilian fenner

I write programs. Sometimes. When I'm cooking, though, I'm not writing programs. These last couple of comments of yours have been a little under the normal quality.

Thanks for the discussion. As always, I appreciate your input and the inspiration to raise the bar.

BTW I get the programs/cooking analogy.

[The Barbarian]

I am pointing out that ascribing anthropomorphisms to 'science' as if it stands alone without the scientist is not a logical arguement but is perfectly typical of a sloppy mind.

You're still stuck in clown thinking. Science is a method. And it can't consider the supernatural, because the method can only work on evidence accessible to the senses.

"The answer is quite simple. Science can't consider the supernatural. But scientists can."

It doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me.

He is the one being obtuse.

Keep in mind, that having made a living doing science, and at the same time being a Christian, I'm astonished that people wouldn't understand that fact.

I learned most of what I know of anatomy from a very good scientist, who happened to be on the board of vestry at a church near campus. He also taught my first class in evolution.

If there were no scientists, there would be no science. Science, done properly or improperly, only emanates from people who have all kinds of presuppositions.

And now you know better. What a silly misconception you have about us.

Science does not think for itself or draw its own conclusions.

True, but the point remains. Science can't deal with the supernatural. But scientists can.

And do. Think.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by George Affleck

Not at all.

I am pointing out that ascribing anthropomorphisms to 'science' as if it stands alone without the scientist is not a logical arguement but is perfectly typical of a sloppy mind.

His comment was: "The answer is quite simple. Science can't consider the supernatural. But scientists can."
He is the one being obtuse.

If there were no scientists, there would be no science. Science, done properly or improperly, only emanates from people who have all kinds of presuppositions.

Science does not think for itself or draw its own conclusions. It is as dependent on a body of humans as your reflection in the mirror is dependent on you.

So it's not your mind that's sloppy, its the ones you are seeking answers from?

[George Affleck]

Is there any empirical scientific evidence to show that scientific investigation should expect only naturalistic conclusions?

...or is the present status of methodological naturalism as standard, established procedure without evidential foundation?

[The Barbarian]

Is there any empirical scientific evidence to show that scientific investigation should expect only naturalistic conclusions?

So far, it works. And that's what science is about. The method is too limited to look for God's hand, even if it might be there. Nor does it deny that God has a hand in it.

...or is the present status of methodological naturalism as standard, established procedure without evidential foundation?

Again, it works. And that's all we want from it. It doesn't pretend to be ultimate truth. It just has to work.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by George Affleck

Is there any empirical scientific evidence to show that scientific investigation should expect only naturalistic conclusions?

...or is the present status of methodological naturalism as standard, established procedure without evidential foundation?

Well we have past experience to tell us that naturalistic conclusions are part of the natural world.

Is there any empirical evidence to show that science should expect "supernatural" explanations?

You really are becoming quite a troll.

[George Affleck]

Originally Posted by noguru

Well we have past experience to tell us that naturalistic conclusions are part of the natural world.

Is there any empirical evidence to show that science should expect "supernatural" explanations?

You really are becoming quite a troll.

Oops, I forgot, smilies are against my religion.

[Stripe]

They aren't against mine.

nobrain.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Stripe

They aren't against mine.

nobrain.

That's for sure. If they were, you'ld have nothing to post.

[George Affleck]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

So far, it works. And that's what science is about. The method is too limited to look for God's hand, even if it might be there. Nor does it deny that God has a hand in it.

Again, it works. And that's all we want from it. It doesn't pretend to be ultimate truth. It just has to work.

Not a bad comment. Of course it doesn't answer the question, "Is there any empirical scientific evidence to show that scientific investigation should expect only naturalistic conclusions?" But I suspect that is because there is none.

I would, of course, argue that the method now accepted has been refined in the last few decades by the scientific establishment so as to embed ‘Naturalism Only - Please!’ as an orthodoxy, both within the scientific community and in the minds of everyday people.

I see this as a tautology where the clear winner will be how easy it is to market atheism. It is the connection to selling a worldview to the public, targeting children first, and by leveraging people’s respect for ‘learned men of science’ that belies the un-severable connection between methodological and ontological naturalism.

Simply stated; atheism is being setup to win by an arbitrary, first decision in favour of strict naturalism, by the scientific community.

[The Barbarian]

Not a bad comment. Of course it doesn't answer the question, "Is there any empirical scientific evidence to show that scientific investigation should expect only naturalistic conclusions?" But I suspect that is because there is none.

It's a consequence of the method. Could you work out a method in which you take a couple of steps to rule out or detect supernatural intervention? I don't know how. Do you?

I would, of course, argue that the method now accepted has been refined in the last few decades by the scientific establishment so as to embed ‘Naturalism Only - Please!’ as an orthodoxy, both within the scientific community and in the minds of everyday people.

The key for scientists, and probably for everyday people is that it works.

There isn't much we can do that works better than science.

I see this as a tautology where the clear winner will be how easy it is to market atheism.

That's the rub. Because it's unable to even consider the supernatural, it can't "market atheism." No way to rule out God, because the method can't go there.

It is the connection to selling a worldview to the public, targeting children first, and by leveraging people’s respect for ‘learned men of science’ that belies the un-severable connection between methodological and ontological naturalism.

A lot of theistic scientists would find that assumption amusing. Me, for example.

Simply stated; atheism is being setup to win by an arbitrary, first decision in favour of strict naturalism, by the scientific community.

Only if you conflate methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism. You might as well accuse your plumber of setting up atheism to win, because he doesn't consider the possibility of blockage demons when he works on your drains. Plumbing has to be methodologically naturalistic. But plumbers can still be theists.

[George Affleck]

Originally Posted by noguru

Well we have past experience to tell us that naturalistic conclusions are part of the natural world.

It is not surprising that God’s laws would be consistent, beautiful and simple. It would, however, be surprising if they existed without origin of any kind.

It is also not surprising that we can come to natural conclusions about natural things. In fact, a creationist model would predict that nature has within it interpretations just waiting to be discovered in the same way that DNA code carries, within it, decoding capabilities.

[George Affleck]

[quote=noguru;3104188]Is there any empirical evidence to show that science should expect "supernatural" explanations?

The supernatural, by definition, makes no promises to explain itself and does not make any apologies for evidence given or withheld.
Scientists, however, have promised to live by empirical evidence for natural phenomena. That is why the burden for empirical evidence rests solely with scientists.

However, I believe that there is some empirical evidence. I have eluded to it in another post.

1. It is impossible for a human being to believe nothing. The evidence for this is that everyone has the capacity for belief and everyone exercises it in one way or another.
Stated a different way, all people have a belief system.

2. All belief systems, common to humans, have at least one element (or more) as the object(s) upon which belief is exercised. The evidence for this is the prior establishment that it is impossible for human beings to believe nothing.

3. A belief system requires faith in the element(s) upon which belief is exercised as a direct result of belief. The evidence for this is that belief is universally exercised especially when facts are not completely established.

4. Faith is universally recognized as a central and necessary feature of religion.

I conclude, then, that all human beings are religious.