Miracles and Methodological Naturalism

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@jongarvey

Point out the illogical circularity.

Seems to me I was baited into doing just that…

You did.

I was not clear before. You did not attack MN this time. You did not take the bait.

This violation of the rules, however, was anything but imperceptible and accidental. It was an intentional abuse of the rules, and you could have called it out even more definitively. That’s all.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@jongarvey

Seems to me I was baited into doing just that…

Also, your article on the Hump is great:

http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2018/06/08/heavily-overlapping-magisteria/

my aim here isn’t to make room in science for God discourse, but to point out that the same kind of human sensibilities that make talk of God possible in other realms are already used within science. Those I’ve mentioned (metaphysics, philosophy, mathematical beauty and simplicity) are some of those that are incontestibly legitimate, and no doubt there are more some might be able to suggest.

And this very common experience:

Now, compare a recent article by @Agauger , about how the beauty she found in nature in her childhood not only persuaded her that there was a God who created it, but prompted her to pursue science in order to find more of the same.

I think you are on the right track @jongarvey. I honestly think you can get there. When you find the rhetoric that has @Patrick clapping along with you, at that point you’ll know you struck gold.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@swamidass

Because creationists explain natural phenomena by saying “God performed a miracle,” we tell them that they are not doing science. This is easy to understand. The flip side, though, is that if science is limited by methodological [naturalism] because of our inability to control an omnipotent power’s interference in nature, both “God did it” and “God didn’t do it” fail as scientific statements. Properly understood, the principle of methodological [naturalism] requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act.
https://ncse.com/religion/science-religion-methodology-humanism

@swamidass

I congratulate you for finding the perfect text to explain what I was attempting to explain! Marvelous.

@Patrick, imagine being a neutral party for just a moment:

If your view of Science were correct, and there is a God who finally reveals himself… then Science was wrong, and wrong for the whole time.

But if Science takes no position on God (which is what we say when we say science professionals who are Christians do good science when their work takes no position on God), then it is neither right nor wrong when the “Big Reveal” occurs.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@swamidass

Just the Palestinian boy. I went and talked to him.

Dr. Swamidas, I recall you mentioning how your job involved spending a lot of time working on grant proposals. Even so, your training as both M.D. and Ph.D. appears to have led to a very rich professional experience. I would encourage you to write that autobiography some day. In the meanwhile, I think many of us here would be interested in learning more about what you do on a typical day at the office. (That’s yet another item for your to-do list.)

@swamidass

I don’t believe in God because of a scientific argument, but science does not have a monopoly on science and evidence. If you want public evidence, it’s there (see Peace Be With You).

The reason we are different @Patrick is not precisely about public evidence or reason, it is more about private evidence. I’ve seen something you have not yet seen. I’ve encountered a living reality of the world that you have not. If you saw it too, you might believe in God too. If I had never seen it, I might be an atheist too. The difference in us is this.

It is not that we think different about science, use different logical rules, or process evidence in a different ways. I just saw something you have yet to see.

Very well put. Perhaps someday some of those kinds of sound bites from these forums can be consolidated on an FAQ and “quotable quotes” webpage on this site.

Meanwhile, in view of the lamentably poor arguments often coming from many Christian Youtube channels, blogs, discussion forums, and poorly informed origins ministries entrepreneurs, I can certainly understand why @Patrick has many frustrations with popular debates on the existence of God, on the mixing of religious thought with science, and with aggressively vocal political forces like the “religious right”. Patrick, I want you to know that I probably do an exasperated face-palm almost as often as you do when I read what is generated out there under the motivation of religious beliefs.