Naturalists and Supernaturalists

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@dga471

I think the RATE project’s proposal and Omphalos hypothesis are epistemologically different. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the people involved with RATE genuinely believed that scientific methods should in principle be able to give an approximately correct picture of the past.

Probably in principle, but not in practice.

In the end of the day, accelerated nuclear decay was an attempt (and a bad one at that) to work around the fact that scientific methods gave a picture of the past that they had a priori rejected.

[T_aquaticus]

I have quoted Romanes to death, so why stop now? The reason I find his work so compelling is that it was written in 1882, and his words still directly address modern discussions between naturalists and supernaturalists.

To avoid misapprehension, however, I may here add that while Mr. Darwin’s theory is thus in plain and direct contradiction to the theory of design, or system of teleology, as presented by the school of writers which I have named, I hold that Mr. Darwin’s theory has no point of logical contact with the theory of design in the larger sense, that behind all secondary causes of a physical kind, there is a primary cause of a mental kind. Therefore throughout this essay I refer to design in the sense understood by the narrower forms of teleology, or as an immediate cause of the observed phenomena. Whether or not there is an ultimate cause of a psychical kind pervading all nature, a causa causarum which is the final raison d’être of the cosmos, this is another question which, as I have said, I take to present no point of logical contact with Mr. Darwin’s theory, or, I may add, with any of the methods and results of natural science. The only position, therefore, which I here desire to render plain is that, if the doctrine of evolution is seen to be established by sufficient evidence, and therefore the causes which it sets forth are recognised as adequate to furnish a scientific explanation of the results observed, then the facts of organic nature necessarily fall into the same logical category, with reference to any question of design, as that of all or any other series of facts in the physical universe.
–George Romanes, “The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution”, 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

I think that nails it. Whether we are talking about evolution or gravity we are talking about immediate causes, or proximal causes as many describe them now. One can adopt both a naturalistic and supernaturalistic mindset for many processes in nature, with naturalism describing the immediate causes of the phenomena, and God being the ultimate cause.

[Mark10.45 (Mark McGowan)]

@dga471

This can also be widened to “Christian who Affirms Mainstream Science” (CAMS).

I am one of these except when mainstream science or scientists insist there is no God. I agree that science must be done apart from claiming God as part of an answer, but that doesn’t mean God is absent from the natural processes. Other than that fairly common issue, science is great.

[r_speir]

@ProfBravus

I propose this because this seems to me to be the fundamental point of difference. Once supernatural intervention is posited, almost any ad hoc adaptation or tweak can be evoked in an explanation. The standard seems to be consistency with existing beliefs and personal plausibility.

Naturalism thinks it is insulated, safe from the threat of God. But that is because it does not understand the problem that God poses. The problem is like a double-edged sword and goes something like this:

It is no harder for God to exist than not<< and >>God may be hiding

So everywhere that the naturalist looks and does not see God, is not an opportunity to boast in his godless paradigm, but rather a prediction one would naturally make about the reality of God.

Richard Dawkins completely misses this fact about God in his writings. What should alarm him the most is that he 1. Does not see God, and 2. Does not discern God in nature, and that the existence of God predicts both outcomes.

[ProfBravus (David Geelan)]

@r_speir

Naturalism thinks it is insulated, safe from the threat of God. But that is because it does not understand the problem that God poses. The problem is like a double-edged sword and goes something like this:

It is no harder for God to exist than not << and >> God may be hiding

So everywhere that the naturalist looks and does not see God, is not an opportunity to boast in his godless paradigm, but rather a prediction one would naturally make about the reality of God.

Richard Dawkins completely misses this fact about God in his writings. What should alarm him the most is that he 1. Does not see God, and 2. Does not discern God in nature, and that the existence of God predicts both outcomes.

Gotta love that the God of Love is a threat…

And as I noted earlier in the thread, ‘I have not seen evidence that convinces me there is a God’ is not the same thing as ‘there is definitely no God’. And it is the former statement that most careful naturalists make…

The theology of why God might choose to hide when finding Him is a matter of life and death is a whole different issue.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@ProfBravus

The theology of why God might choose to hide when finding Him is a matter of life and death is a whole different issue.

How do you think he is hiding? His presents is documented, He spent time in human form on earth and His grand design is in front of all who open their eyes to observe it.

[r_speir]

@colewd

How do you think he is hiding?

Don’t you know the passage that says God hides himself?

[r_speir]

@ProfBravus

Gotta love that the God of Love is a threat…

The Scriptures are replete with the idea of a threatening God.

@ProfBravus

‘I have not seen evidence that convinces me there is a God’

This lack of evidence is what should trouble the naturalist the most.

@ProfBravus

The theology of why God might choose to hide when finding Him is a matter of life and death is a whole different issue.

The Scriptures are not silent regarding the fact that God desires to be sought out.

[ProfBravus (David Geelan)]

@colewd

How do you think he is hiding? His presents is documented, he spent time in human form on earth and his grand design is in front of all who open their eyes to observe it.

Please read the post immediately above mine: the notion that God is hiding belongs to @r_speir, not me.

[ProfBravus (David Geelan)]

@r_speir

@ProfBravus

‘I have not seen evidence that convinces me there is a God’

This lack of evidence is what should trouble the naturalist the most.

OK, I’m done: “the most convincing possible evidence that God exists is that there is no evidence that God exists”.

At that point, any further engagement is bootless.

[r_speir]

@colewd

grand design is in front of all who open their eyes to observe it.

All eyes are not open like ours. Dawkins is convinced he does not see God in nature. That fact should desperately trouble him.

[AlanFox]

@r_speir

Dawkins is convinced he does not see God in nature. That fact should desperately trouble him.

Why should it?

[r_speir]

@ProfBravus

OK, I’m done: “the most convincing possible evidence that God exists is that there is no evidence that God exists”.

You think my statement is contradictory, but that only indicates you have not confronted your problem.

Isaiah 45:15 “Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior.”

Since God hides himself, then we should have also predicted he would create everything and hide his tracks. If you cannot discern God, his very existence predicts exactly that.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@r_speir

Since God hides himself, then we should have also predicted he would create everything and hide his tracks. If you cannot discern God, his very existence predicts exactly that.

Omphalos much?