On Ken Miller (sort of)

I think it is amusing that "Creationist" is the new slur word for scientists. PZ initially called Collins and Miller Creationists. Now you compare PZ to Creationists.

and science should be by definition silent on metaphysical matters. As it should be.

I trust you will apply that with equal fervor to scientists who claim science supports their theism, such as Collins and Polkinghorne. Also there is a distinction between science should be silent and scientists should be silent. I see no reason scientists should not be allowed to express their extra-scientific philosophical arguments, same as everyone else, so long as they do not falsely tout it as a scientific claim.

>you compare PZ to Creationists.

Nope. I compare the "shrill insistancy" of some of the *commentors* to that of creationists. Slight difference.

Science *is* silent on metaphysical claims, scientists are not, whether we are talking about Dawkins or Collins. As you correctly say, they are free to "express their extra-scientific philosophical arguments, same as everyone else, so long as they do not falsely tout it as a scientific claim."

Atheism, it seems, coats the mind in a wonderful certitude, a belief that one's lack of belief is the Truth, that all religions are Evil, and that science has something to say about the metaphysical. I should know ... I was an atheist once.

This is sarcasm, right? Surely you're not generalizing from PZ or even some of his commenters to all atheists.

My lack of belief IS true. It is true that I have a lack of belief. That's as far as my atheistic certainty goes, and it's the only assertion I make about God. As Tara notes, you seem to be generalizing.

OK, perhaps I'm really talking about atheism of the Pharyngula-esque variety. Though I have encountered a similar mindset in many atheists.

Many of the people who disagreed with PZ in the comments section were atheists. I was one of them. Me thinks you're painting with a brush that's slightly too broad.

You seem to think that science has nothing to say about the metaphysical.

Is this in itself a denial of the possibility of miracles?

If we accept the possibility of miracles, then don't we accept the possibility that God could perform a miracle that would demonstrate His existence in a scientific way?

I understand that science adopts a methodological naturalism as the only way in which it can work. I also understand the criticism that people like PZ and his band make a leap to philosophical naturalism and call it science.

But in stating that science says nothing about metaphysics, isn't that also a presumption that science will never ever ever point a telescope and find a cherub (as unlikely as that might be)?

Isn't presuming that the natural world always works by explainable physical laws an assumption against miracles a priori?

Here's another question: Why is there any question vexing humanity that is outside of the domain of science? Who put it outside of the purview of science? Was it scientists or the church?

Here's another question: If there were some aspect of God's existence that was detectable by science, how would we know unless we used the tools of science to look?

I'm an atheist, so I'm asking these questions as an illustration of a point. My point is to look at the underlying assumption that religious unfalsifyable notions get a free pass. A "get out of scientific inquiry free" card. Isn't Dawkins correct that we should all be "teapot atheists"?

Is the idea that science should properly stay out of metaphysics merely a gentlemen's agreement? A bargain struck back in history to keep the church from banning the profession outright?

Don't those who think that science and religion are non-overlapping majesteria presume a non-miraculous universe, not provisionally as I do, but axiomatically?

You may think that no scientist will ever point a telescope and find a cherub. I think it's highly unlikely and extremely remote. I won't say never.

You might say that it will never happen, but I don't see how you can make a scientific argument that it will never happen. I CAN see how you can make a faith or theological argument that it will never happen.

I think that a non-miraculous universe is a presupposition underlying NOMA. I think a faith assertion is involved in positing a non-miraculous universe: Either God doesn't exist or He doesn't want to be discovered by science.

So if a faith argument is what is used to keep science from answering the question of God... why should scientists accept that?

John, to clarify, my comment above was made before I read your previous comment. I definitely agree with you about the "shrill insistancy" of some of the commentors at Pharyngula, but certainly not all atheists--and, I hope, not even most--are like that.

> the possibility of miracles?

I'm with Hume on this.

> isn't that also a presumption that science will never ever ever point a telescope and find a cherub (as unlikely as that might be)?

What have cherubs to do wiith metaphysics?

By definition, a god is supernatural and thus exists outside nature. Thus, you cannot prove or disprove their existence or characteristics using observation of nature. It's a faith issue.

I'm with Hume on that as well.

My point is that some atheists act as if observation of nature proves their atheism. It does not. Some deists act as if observation of nature proves their deism. It does not. Some theists act as if observation of nature proves their theism. It does not.

Agnosticism - to me at least - seems the only rational stance regarding this.

Can you get me a link to the pertinent arguments of Hume that sum up your response. I'm not well-versed enough to see your point from that reference.

"By definition, a god is supernatural and thus exists outside nature. Thus, you cannot prove or disprove their existence or characteristics using observation of nature. It's a faith issue."

I think you're conflating God with a miracle. A supernatural being, especially one as powerful as God, could surely create an effect that would be a provable physical manifestatation of a supernatural cause.

By way of analogy, a vampire is a supposed supernatural creature. However if one existed and you could study it, its supernatural characteristics would be quite apparant to science.

To say that God cannot be proven or disproven by the study of nature is to presume that God hides willfully or does not exist. Aren't those both faith positions? Isn't setting the line of demarkation between science and metaphysics based on faith logically arbitrary?

"Agnosticism - to me at least - seems the only rational stance regarding this."

I wonder from your use of this phrase what your definitions are. In atheist circles, the word atheist generally refers to your religious practice, and agnosticism is one of the arguments about what philosophical reasoning brought you to your current worldview. Is that how you're using it? For myself, I am atheist because I am agnostic on the question of God.

As Dawkins has mentioned, we do not believe in a celestial teapot orbiting the sun. Technically we must say we are agnostic about the teapot- it cannot be proven or disproven. But in practice we are all "teapot atheists".

Most atheists I know use the agnostic argument for why they are atheists. I find it quite rational as well, but I'm not sure if you and I are talking about the same position.

Siamang,

What is your definition of miracle and what purpose(s) do you think they serve?

John Lynch,

What if the definition of god was a supra-natural (über-natural?) being, part of but transcending nature? Supernatural is an assumption about god's supposed nature, no?

I would call a miracle the observable, unmistakable effects of a supernatural cause. I would not hazard to guess what the purpose of a miracle would be. I am merely observing that denying that science has anything to say on the subject is to tacitly presume that miracles do not exist.

Gallileo wrote: "Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. "

If we were to dissect a bird and find Gallileo's design, THAT would be a miracle. A fully observable, unmistakable effect of a supernatural cause.

"The problem is, there is no Truth, all religions are not Evil, and science should be by definition silent on metaphysical matters. As it should be."

I can't agree that science is silent on metaphysical matters. I don't reject creationism, Holocaust denial, and 9/11 conspiracy theories on faith, but because there is overwhelming evidence against them and they are *false*.

Further, the religious views that people actually hold have empirical content. You can talk about an abstract theism that has no empirical consequences, but that is different from what people actually believe. Science *does* have consequences for actual religious views, which is why we see religious conservatives using political means to stop areas of scientific research and rewrite the conclusions of scientific work.

"By definition, a god is supernatural and thus exists outside nature. Thus, you cannot prove or disprove their existence or characteristics using observation of nature. It's a faith issue."

But nearly all believers in gods say that their gods are also in or interact with nature on a regular basis and have empirically observable effects.

"If we accept the possibility of miracles, then don't we accept the possibility that God could perform a miracle that would demonstrate His existence in a scientific way?"

If God exists and can affect the empirically observable world, then the answer is clearly yes.

There is no reason that a methodological naturalist could not, given the right set of observations, be led to conclude that the best available evidence is that philosophical naturalism is false.

Can you get me a link to the pertinent arguments of Hume that sum up your response. I'm not well-versed enough to see your point from that reference.

David Hume

...
The argument against belief in miracles that Hume omitted from A Treatise of Human Nature later appeared in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. There Hume argued that miracles, by definition, involve the violation of the laws of nature, and are therefore less likely to occur than any other event. Any attestation to a miracle is therefore more likely to be errant than accurate; misleading evidence is more probable than the miraculous. If anyone reports to us the occurrence of a miracle, therefore, then we should should reject that report as either dishonest or mistaken, and if it appears to us that a miracle has occurred in our presence, then we do better to doubt our senses than to believe them.
...

Thanks Friend Fruit.

This is very interesting to me. I myself have argued from time to time that science and theology are NOMa.

This discussion has led me to examine the presuppositions underlying such a demarkation.

Jim Lippard wrote:

"There is no reason that a methodological naturalist could not, given the right set of observations, be led to conclude that the best available evidence is that philosophical naturalism is false."

I agree with this statement. What I wonder about is the presupposition that this is not possible, putting theological questions consciously away from the penetrating gaze of science. Were organized religion not a powerful, threatening force, or such a dearly emotionally held belief, I cannot think of a rationale that students of science or the philosophy of science could bring to bear that excuses the free pass on inquiry.

I am reminded of the study of the effacacy of prayer performed by the Mayo clinic. Here, clearly, was a rigorous scientific probing of a reported supernatural phenomenon. It is one that COULD have shown positive results. It was double-blinded properly. It was conducted properly.

And yet, I think you could have polled a large swath of non philosophical naturalists before the result and a large number of them, if not most of them, would predict that the study wouldn't find a positive corrolation between prayer and healing.

What I mean is, people doubtful of the existence of God will tell you before the study that the results would show no corrolation. This is to be expected.

But ALSO people who believe in God and in the power of prayer ALSO predicted that the study wouldn't show corrolation, if their unsurprised reactions reported in the media following the results are to be taken at face value.

Some people who believe that prayer heals will tell you right outright that science will not be able to measure it. Which leads me to believe that people begin with the starting point that science cannot test God, because He will hide.

But science CLEARLY has the power to measure this effect, if it did indeed exist. If the people double-blind prayed for got better at an significant rate, science could absolutely have detected it. It might not have proved God without significant additional research... but it would have been a start of a whole new branch of science.

"Supernatural things are outside the realm of science because God can't be put in a test-tube" is therefore not a valid argument in the Mayo Clinic case. Why then is it that 'Science should by definition be silent on metaphysical matters'?

By what reasoning do you draw this assertion?

By definition, a god is supernatural and thus exists outside nature. Thus, you cannot prove or disprove their existence or characteristics using observation of nature. It's a faith issue.

Yeah right, so "God" doesn't interact with the real world and can't be detected. Isn't that a definition for the word "imaginary"? If faith == imagination, then I have faith too.

John Lynch,

I'm flummoxed - bemused even - as to exactly where you stand on this. It's true that if we define God in the traditional terms of omnipotence, et cetera, and as a being outside of the physical than science as a matter of definition cannot and will never disprove It's existence. However, I think this is a straw man: few atheists would argue that it could.

What we can say, though, is that 'science' (or scientific reasoning, whateve you want to call it) can provide us wiith the tools to falsify religious narratives. We can show that the creation story set out in the Bible is not true, for example, and we can analyze the Book Itself and identify its (very human) origins in earlier accounts and in pre-Abrahamic traditions - thereby falsifying the claim of the Bible to being divinely inspired and thus undermining the authority of its account of God (or, frankly, of anything).

My point is that while 'science' does not dictate a metaphysics of its own (obviously), a scientific approach may be employed to challenge the (textual or authority-based) foundations upon which religious metaphysics are based. What are we left with then?

To take it from another angle: an (original) investigation of metaphysics needs a foundation. There we face a choice: we can start with authorities (whether Aristotle, Hume, the Bible, Tom Cruise, or the friendly neighbourhood guru), we can start with gut feelings and intuitions, or we can start with observation (the latter two are generally mutually exclusive as observation - science - can easily showus how untrustworthy our intuitions can be). Religious belief of any kind starts with authorities or intuition: as you have yourself said, 'By definition, a god is supernatural and thus exists outside nature.' As a consequence, observation will not reaveal a God unless He/She/It goes in for earthly manifestation.

I used to call myself an agnostic until I realized it was a meaningless position: I could say 'I have no evidence that can lead me to definitively refute the existence of a silent God,' but equally I saw no grounds for belief. Lack of belief is atheism - it's a binary question. You believe, or you don't (though belief doesn't mean you know what you believe in!).

'Science' doesn't lead me to reject the possibility of the supernatural (except in the sense that it appears not to impdede upon the physical world in which I live and thus to all practical intent it may as well not exist and can be ignored as a pointless hypothesis). It can and does lead me to reject particular religious beliefs: science is not silent on the subject of the Biblical account. And nor should it be.