Can We Empirically Detect "Agency"?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@rcohlers

So, I would say I suspect there is a rational test for detecting a miracle, which begin with empirical observation of a realtime event, but also employs other means of real knowledge. The reason for the engagement with science is that the domain of science and the domain of rational knowledge overlap at the point of empirically observable realtime events.

So that is why I used “emperically” in the thread. This is where the disagreement lies.

First of all, I see science as very different than you.

@rcohlers

the domain of science… overlap at the point of empirically observable realtime events.

It is my understanding that science largely ignores realtime events. We are usually collecting large datasets of events, and by the time we look at them they are no longer realtime. We are usually looking at the past, and almost never at realtime. In fact, I would say it is part of our training to ignore the realtime, so that we can avoid observer bias.

So if what you care about is “empirically observable realtime events,” I’m not sure that is in the domain of science, at least as it is currently practiced. Though maybe someone can show me the rare exception. That would be interesting, but it would still be the exception to the rule.

---

On another thread there is an interesting test case. There are two places I see God’s action in Divine Action in the Thailand Cave Rescue? - #4 by swamidass.

@swamidass

So several people there perceived God’s providential governance over this situation. It is the timing that seems to signal meaning, not any notion of laws being broken. A question for @rcohlers, how could empiricism even in principle tell us if this was special divine action or not? What evidence could tell us if it was divine protection or not? And theologically speaking, why do these question of mechanism matter even the slightest?

And look at an equally valid interpretation, chance,

“The most important piece of the rescue was good luck,” said Maj. Gen. Chalongchai Chaiyakham, the deputy commander of the Third Army region, which helped the operation. “So many things could have gone wrong, but somehow we managed to get the boys out.”

What we do not see is any consideration of science or natural law. That seems entirely irrelevant. Though we can still assert they have a rational basis (perhaps rooted in proper basic knowledge and/or religious experience). Moreover, it is entirely possible that the natural explanation of “chance” is correct. We cannot distinguish between chance and providence. Both might be equally valid interpretations of the publicly accessible data.

---

The other example seems to be embeded in our internal wiring of how we tell stories.

@swamidass

However, there is something about us that wants to read the story that way. In some sense we know that Wichai has some right to be angry with the coach for his son Saman’s death. Perhaps he even is, and that is being hidden from us. However, we know that the Image of God in this moment is Wichai, reflecting to us all the heart of the Father in the story of the Prodigal Son. There is Grace from the father beyond what we might rightfully expect, even as we come to expect it as we know the Father is truly good.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

Even if the prayer meeting was Christian, it likely included Buddhists too, and it is in Buddhist cultural context. It seems this reading is just as those even in this culture seem to read it. There seems to be something deeply resonant between this story and the Gospel.

So I am inferring something about God’s action here, in the way we are prone to understand the story. It is also once again easy to come up with natural explanations for this. But does that even really engage my inference? Not really, as it might merely be the ontology of our nature, but not its teleology.

---

I think this is a good place to engage deeper @rcohlers. It seems like you come with a strong presupposition that science is supposed to be helpful here. Why? Is it possible you are wrong on that? If the goal is to just show that such beliefs are rational, proper basic belief (or perception) and/or religious experience seems to get you there. Why is that not enough for you?

@Philosurfer

The miracles that I am confident in are the biblical miracles, the miracles of today, I’m much less sure.

That is why I’m finding a lot learn from Lutheranism. I’m confident that God could be working in these places, and I believe we can rationally discern God’s providential governance. However, discerning special divine action in particular independent of revelation? That is hard to imagine.

Perhaps you have given us another reason to doubt science can help us too @rcohlers, because realtime events does not appear to be in science’s domain.