Miracles 'n' Science

[hamflask]

explain
A fundamental assumption [i]o[/i]f science [i]i[/i]s [i]th[/i]at [i]th[/i]e universe obeys some set [i]o[/i]f regular laws, [i]a[/i]nd [i]th[/i]e evidence [i]t[/i]hat this assumption [i]i[/i]s correct accumulates with every scientific success. However, Christianity dictates [i]t[/i]hat God [i]i[/i]s able [i]t[/i]o perform miracles, which, according [i]t[/i]o my [i]u[/i]nderstanding supernatural phenomena [i]t[/i]hat disobey [i]th[/i]e regular laws [i]t[/i]hat science assumes. I will concede [i]t[/i]hat miracles do make sense; there [i]i[/i]s no reason God can't disobey[i]th[/i]e laws it, an okay but not SO great novel,, an okay but not SO great novel,, an okay but not SO great novel,, an okay but not SO great novel,, an okay but not SO great novel,, an okay but not SO great novel,, an okay but not SO great novel, set into place. [i]th[/i]e problem [i]i[/i]s [i]t[/i]hat with miracles possible, science must be able [i]t[/i]o (or at least would like [i]t[/i]o) make [i]th[/i]e distinction between miraculous [i]a[/i]nd [i]th[/i]e non-miraculous phenomena. [i]i[/i]s this possible?

Science tends [i]t[/i]o eventually explain whatever [i]i[/i]t contacts, Could [i]i[/i]t explain miracles as well? If not, why?

[mod]srry 'bout dat especially w/ur 1st post, fixed 4 ya -Aloysius[/mod]

Edited April 2, 2009 by Aloysius

[Nihil Obstat]

Most people would appreciate i[i][/i]f y[i][/i]ou reposted y[i][/i]our question tomorrow.

Unfortunately y[i][/i]ou picked a bad day t[i][/i]o start a deep conversation.

[Veridicus]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Miracle_of_Fatima"]Wikipedia Miracle of the Sun[/url]

Edited April 2, 2009 by Veridicus

[Aloysius]

srry, i cant fix everything, discussion'll prolly have 2 wait 4 2morrow (unless u can edit urself), i just felt bad 4 the guys 1st serious post n all

[Veridicus]

h[i][/i]a[i][/i]mf[i][/i]la[i][/i]sk, y[i][/i]o[i][/i]u c[i][/i]a[i][/i]n d[i][/i]o[i][/i]wnl[i][/i]o[i][/i]ad t[i][/i]h[i][/i]e bm[i][/i]p f[i][/i]il[i][/i]e I sa[i][/i]v[i][/i]e[i][/i]d o[i][/i]f m[i][/i]y t[i][/i]ex[i][/i]t...o[i][/i]r I c[i][/i]an re[i][/i]po[i][/i]st to[i][/i]m[i][/i]or[i][/i]ro[i][/i]w (I[i][/i]T I[i][/i]S T[i][/i]O[i][/i]M[i][/i]O[i][/i]R[i][/i]R[i][/i]O[i][/i]W W[i][/i]HE[i][/i]RE I L[i][/i]I[i][/i]VE...HE[i][/i]A[i][/i]R T[i][/i]H[i][/i]A[i][/i]T D[i][/i]U[i][/i]ST?!!?!?!?). C[i][/i]h[i][/i]e[i][/i]c[i][/i]k o[i][/i]u[i][/i]t t[i][/i]h[i][/i]e W[i][/i]iki s[i][/i]i[i][/i]t[i][/i]e f[i][/i]o[i][/i]r t[i][/i]h[i][/i]a[i][/i]t m[i][/i]ir[i][/i]a[i][/i]cl[i][/i]e. [i][/i]

[dairygirl4u2c]

the way i look at it is, science could theoretically explain miracles, but i don't think they will.
i'd even venture that empirically it's not the best answer, science, for a science minded person.

eg
a person is god fearin and all that. they get a miracle. corneas in the eye develop where they never would in humans without it. a back is healed, cancer goes away etc.

a hard core atheist would say, that in reality of no God intervention miracles, things would just occur, in a given population, rarely. (kinda the idea that's how evolution occurs, ya get more of the type that can regenerate corneas, and you'll eventually be different species, like hte star fish who can do that, or whatever, to oversimply). they say probabilities explain it.

they assume it all happens the same in nonGod world as in God world.
i don't think that's the case. i don't see flesh or coreneas etc happening in nonGod world. maybe we just don't see it as it's not publicized, but, i don't think it occurs.
you'd be able to locate or remember at least one case of such an occurance. i don't see it.

but even if it didn't occur in nonGOd world, they'd say that there's another explaination. the mind etc.
i don't think this is the best explaination. if you see a population who prays, and one who doesn't, and then the population who prays get something that looks like a miracle, what is the best answer? the mind is a possible answer, that's why i concede it's theoretically possible they could prove it. but, given things that defy nature apparently are occurring, ie flesh growing where it shouldn't etc, and the population that it's occurring in is God praying fearing etc ---- the conclusion is obvious. (but to explain- it appears an outside entity or phenomeno is occuring. given the person in that population is beeseaching an outside phenomenon, perhaps just maybe it's an outside phenomenon.
it's the best judgment answer too, given the apparently defying nature thing.
(apparently is the key word, but it's just acknowledging there's a degree of uncertainty. it's almost too much to throw the bone to the other side such taht tey can cower behind that remote possibility)

so obvious, in fact, that ultimately, denying the possiblity (and probably even not believing itself - tho i don't think God wants to be coercive here or it'd be made easier etc, plus as aquanis said, using miracles as the basis of your fiath is a little shaky) is like sticking your head in the sand. denying hte obvious. putting your mind in the clouds so much that you oversee the fact that a miracle just happened right in front of your eyes.
"that they have eyes and not see" as jesus said.

Edited April 2, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[cmotherofpirl]

So you think a little child's mind cured itself?

[url="http://www1.phillyburbs.com/drexel/news/636505.htm"]http://www1.phillyburbs.com/drexel/news/636505.htm[/url]

[eagle_eye222001]

Science can show what happens when something happens.....but it ultimately cannot explain why.

[BG45]

[url="http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7234444&page=1"]Vatican investigating 'miracle' of JP2 rosary and man who recovered after being shot execution style in the head[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

clarifying as it's the essence of my last post:

"it appears an outside entity or phenomeno is occuring. given the person in that population is beeseaching an outside phenomenon, perhaps just maybe it's an outside phenomenon."

should be
"it appears an outside entity or phenomenon is causing the apparent miracle. this in itself is reason enough to think it might be an outside cause, given we have no other explanation. but, also, given that the person in that population is beseeching an outside phenomenon, combined with the fact it looks like an independent cause to begin with, and that this sort of phenomenon isn't happening to the nonpraying population, perhaps, just maybe, it's an outside phenomenon causing the situation."

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='hamflask' post='1822487' date='Apr 2 2009, 12:01 AM']explain
A fundamental assumption of science is that the universe obeys some set of regular laws, and the evidence that this assumption is correct accumulates with every scientific success. However, Christianity dictates that God is able to perform miracles, which, according to my understanding supernatural phenomena that disobey the regular laws that science assumes.[/quote]For the sake of discussion, if it is possible, can you supply any evidence or reason for these two premises concerning “[i]Science[/i]” and “[i]Christianity[/i]”?

Coherency theory would certainly suggest that the universe, if there are multiple laws concerning the universe, ought not to contradict, but it is possible nonetheless that there is one law concerning the universe ([i]but that we may perceive it as many[/i]).[quote name='hamflask' post='1822487' date='Apr 2 2009, 12:01 AM']I will concede that miracles do make sense; there is no reason God can't disobey the laws it set into place. The problem is that with miracles possible, science must be able to (or at least would like to) make the distinction between miraculous and the non-miraculous phenomena. Is this possible?[/quote]The Church has a vested interest in determining the origin of [i]supposed[/i] supernatural miracles, regardless of what they be, and periodically the Church dismisses some supposed miracles because evidence/reason to the contrary or possibly lack of evidence/reason.

But [i]some[/i] scientists do not admit that supernatural miracles exist, since they question if it would be possible to determine what is a miracle is and if it could be determined, [i]would it still be a miracle[/i]? I [i]personally think[/i] that it makes more sense that God can affect a supernatural miracles through ordinary or extraordinary means, and that our understanding of the phenomena is not necessarily grounds for dismissal of the presence or involvement of God.[quote name='hamflask' post='1822487' date='Apr 2 2009, 12:01 AM']Science tends to eventually explain whatever it contacts, Could it explain miracles as well? If not, why?[/quote]Understanding of phenomena does not necessarily subtract God from the phenomena, but God being metaphysical and physical science observes merely the physical, makes the latter ineffective for the former. [i]For example[/i]; It would be like using dentistry to find a distant star or chemistry to propose a better understanding of political science. While these examples, are not impossible, it does certainly bring up the thought that maybe some fields of science are best left for their particular fields.

Science does not seek to find universal “facts” as much as it seeks to propose reasonable explanations for what it observes. For example, the reason why empirical science takes the task of being so particular rather than universal, but eventually when we explore and research, we have to start from somewhere.

Could science offer explanations for miracles, I would personally say yes, in as much it does not fall into the [i]heresy of naturalism[/i], [i]that all things are merely natural[/i].

Edited April 2, 2009 by Mr.CatholicCat

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Vatican investigating 'miracle' of JP2 rosary and man who recovered after being shot execution style in the head[/quote]

what's sad is if that is a miracle, i wonder if it will count.

the doctor said his recover is one in a million. if there's lots, but rare, of these events in non prayer communities, it won't be enough.
the situation would have to involve flesh growing where it never could etc. the original doctor would ahve ot base his conclusion of 'no recovery' on something like 'no flesh can recover, th erbain can't recover etc'.
plus, i'd bet they'd want a full or fairly full recovery for it to count.

Edited April 2, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Veridicus]

REPOST:


Science will always offer explanations for miraculous phenomenon. Sometimes the scientific explanation is possible and even likely. I have noticed in my own experience studying biology in undergraduate and even during this past year of studying mediclne, that scientists are more than willing to accept weakly formed scientific answers rather than coming anywhere near the possiblity of assenting to a miraculous explanation. In my honest opinion, accepting bad science as an explanation is just that: bad science. But it seems to be the prevailing trend among scientists who, as a philosophical a priori, assume a natural explanation exists for all observable phenomenon. I do believe there are miraculous events. I am skeptical of many, as is the Church...just look at the investigations which are undertaken when someone somewhere claims a miraculous healing or an apparition. Bonified miracles in the strict 'utterly defies science sense' are rare I would imagine. An interesting miracle that baffles me (that scientists offer weak explanations for but then proceed to utterly dismiss the event having at least concocted a pseudoscientific explanation for) is "The Miracle of the Sun" that occured in Fatima, Portugal almost 100 years ago. It was observed by tens of thousands of people from various perspectives and of various persuasions (priests, laity, non-believers, politicians, journalists...)... and it occurred on the exact day and time the children had declared that it would. I hope that helps.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Miracle_of_Fatima"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Miracle_of_Fatima[/url]

Edited April 2, 2009 by Veridicus

[dairygirl4u2c]

"I have noticed in my own experience studying biology in undergraduate and even during this past year of studying mediclne, that scientists are more than willing to accept weakly formed scientific answers rather than coming anywhere near the possiblity of assenting to a miraculous explanation. In my honest opinion, accepting bad science as an explanation is just that: bad science."

exactly. esp since that's essentially what i was getting at.




the wiki article has me, actually, skeptical, when i once wasn't as much, about fatima.
there's people who didn't see naything. any saw a rainbow thing.
some claim those who did claim to see things, are nuts.
that there were 70k people there, doesn't mean as much if you're not saying how many saw what etc.

i'd argue, zeitun egypt apparitions are more indicative.
and medjugorje events, that anyone can go see.
not sure what to make of these, but there's got to be something to them.

[hamflask]

Here is the original post, for legibility's sake. Perhaps a mod could replace my first post with the following.

A fundamental assumption of science is that the universe obeys some set of regular laws, and the evidence that this assumption is correct accumulates with every scientific success. However, Christianity dictates that God is able to perform miracles, which, according to my understanding, are supernatural phenomena that disobey the regular laws that science assumes. I will concede that miracles do make sense; there is no reason God can't disobey the laws He set into place. The problem is that with miracles possible, science must be able to (or at least would like to) make the distinction between miraculous and non-miraculous phenomena. Is this possible?

Science tends to eventually explain whatever it contacts, so what was a miracle yesterday may be a mundane and natural occurrence today. Could it be possible to apply science to miracles as well? If not, why?

[Galloglasses' Alt]

In response, you should be aware that when investigating purported Miracles, the Church herself exhausts every explainible scientific alternative until there is none left, usually employing a third party to help her. If you mean can science, for lack of a better term 'Dissect' Miracles, no it can't, if it could, then its not a miracle. Because ultimately a miracle is something mankind has no control over. (regardless of how big or small), if we did, we could replicate it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='hamflask' post='1822910' date='Apr 2 2009, 07:48 PM']Here is the original post, for legibility's sake. Perhaps a mod could replace my first post with the following.

A fundamental assumption of science is that the universe obeys some set of regular laws, and the evidence that this assumption is correct accumulates with every scientific success. However, Christianity dictates that God is able to perform miracles, which, according to my understanding, are supernatural phenomena that disobey the regular laws that science assumes. I will concede that miracles do make sense; there is no reason God can't disobey the laws He set into place. The problem is that with miracles possible, science must be able to (or at least would like to) make the distinction between miraculous and non-miraculous phenomena. Is this possible?

Science tends to eventually explain whatever it contacts, so what was a miracle yesterday may be a mundane and natural occurrence today. Could it be possible to apply science to miracles as well? If not, why?[/quote]


i would reiterate what i said above, and others' good points as well.

i think you're getting at science's assumptions cannot allow for God, because that deny's science's assumptions. you see how circular it is. (arguably, depending on your premises)
what one should have to conclude, is that science simply needs to change its assumptions. it should take its base proposal, namely the seeking of truth, and allow for the possibility of God. that it won't, is limiting.
ie, to define its assumptions as necessarily precluding God, is limiting. it's not scientific in the sense that it should be, in the sense that it should be defined, anyway.

[hamflask]

Interesting replies. Excellent!

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat']For the sake of discussion, if it is possible, can you supply any evidence or reason for these two premises concerning "Science" and "Christianity"?[/quote]
My claim that science assumes constant natural law follows from the fact that scientific theories are expected to make accurate predictions. If the natural laws that the theories model are not constant, making accurate predictions is impossible. My claim about miracles being supernatural is simply my understanding of the difference between miracles and non-miracles. If you disagree (which it seems you may), what is the difference? Could finding a $20 bill that I didn't really need be considered a miracle? Is the matter entirely subjective?

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat']Could science offer explanations for miracles, I would personally say yes, in as much it does not fall into the heresy of naturalism, that all things are merely natural.[/quote]
By "explanation", I actually meant "theory". This implies that miracles would be about as predictable as gravity. Does this change your answer?

[quote name='Veridicus']I have noticed in my own experience studying biology in undergraduate and even during this past year of studying mediclne, that scientists are more than willing to accept weakly formed scientific answers rather than coming anywhere near the possiblity of assenting to a miraculous explanation. In my honest opinion, accepting bad science as an explanation is just that: bad science. But it seems to be the prevailing trend among scientists who, as a philosophical a priori, assume a natural explanation exists for all observable phenomenon.[/quote]
Scientists must never be satisfied with a miraculous explanation; it doesn't make predictions. If a scientist ever concludes "this phenomenon is miraculous, therefore there is nothing more to be done here", that is essentially closing the door to an explanation that is actually [i]helpful[/i], ie, able to make predictions. This makes assenting to a miraculous explanation in fact bad science.

The supposed miracles posted in this thread are interesting cases, but they are not what interests me. They are isolated and rather esoteric cases, and reproducibility is a key factor in studying a phenomenon effectively. What I'd like to know is what exactly are the factors that make something a miracle. Would transubstantiation of bread and wine be considered miracles? That sounds like something that could be studied quite rigorously. If provided with sound evidence that transubstantiation is real, I would most certainly rethink my beliefs (but it wouldn't stop me from trying to fully understand the process of transubstantiation!). Why hasn't this been done? Is it simply sacrilege, or is it somehow impossible?

[hamflask]

Sorry for the double post, but I may as well address this now.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1822964' date='Apr 2 2009, 08:39 PM']i think you're getting at science's assumptions cannot allow for God, because that deny's science's assumptions. you see how circular it is. (arguably, depending on your premises)
what one should have to conclude, is that science simply needs to change its assumptions. it should take its base proposal, namely the seeking of truth, and allow for the possibility of God. that it won't, is limiting.
ie, to define its assumptions as necessarily precluding God, is limiting. it's not scientific in the sense that it should be, in the sense that it should be defined, anyway.[/quote]
Science essentially assumes that everything is explainable. It has to, otherwise any scientist could just give up on her studies and exclaim, "This is unexplainable!" Science doesn't have much to say about a deistic god, but if the god is able to affect the universe in a detectable way, this falls under the realm of science, and science must attempt to explain it. Since the Christian God is by definition ineffable (correct me if I'm wrong), there is a contradiction here. We shouldn't be able to predict divine intervention, but that's exactly what science must attempt to do. Therefore, in my opinion, there is a fundamental conflict between science and many religions, and the existence of miracles is the focus of the conflict.

This conflict in itself doesn't prove that science is correct of course; I'm not using circular reasoning. The fact that science has proven so good at what it does, however, is strong evidence that science is correct.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Scientists must never be satisfied with a miraculous explanation; it doesn't make predictions. If a scientist ever concludes "this phenomenon is miraculous, therefore there is nothing more to be done here", that is essentially closing the door to an explanation that is actually helpful, ie, able to make predictions. This makes assenting to a miraculous explanation in fact bad science.[/quote]

i don't think anyone's saying science has to say it's a miracle and stop searching.
part of the scientific method as we're or i'm definiing it, is to keep searching no matter what. they disprove negatives, not proving positives, scientists. there's nothing wrong with taking that mindset to God, necessarily, as someone who doesn't tend to beleive in God. (i'm not sure its' appropriate for a believer, but)
the scientist should say "the theory of God or whatever this outside entity is, has not been disproven. there's evidence in its favor. the God hypothesis is sound. (note: i do not think intelligent design should be taught in school, even as a hypothesis- except maybe philophsy class- but this is another post, and gets into the politics of the situation)

as to the point about not being able to reproduce a miracle, i don't see the problem. ie, in my system, not all things need recreateable, but it's the best standard for a proposition to be proven not false (again nothing proven true).
if God were to do miracles, as i think he does, that doesn't mean they would have to be recreatable to be worthy of consideration etc. imagine all the truths one would be denying, just because they can't be recreated. imagine, if God did exist, and these things were happenings, for the sake of argument,,,, you'd never be have a way of saying "this seems true" or whatever, just cause it happens to escape capture, to not be reproducable. that seems pretty crazy to me, to just throw all that sort of phenomenon out the window.

but again, if you're just saying you want to keep science separate, there's really no magic in how one devises the systems, or chooses to say "this is miracle territory, it don't belong with science stuff". it's all arbitrary, the distinctions of the systems, in so far as one might entertain that miracles are true yet say it doesn't belong in X science system.
ie, "this belong in science. this belongs in miracles. v. we'll create a system that includes miracles under the umbrella of "science" --- is really pretty arbitrary
now, 'miracles' is a loaded word. i can see why you'd think we'd have to stop searching cause we've proven it, cause that's what's connotated with the word etc. but, it doesn't have to be that way.


with that said, i don't think entertainiong God or X as a possiblity is diluting science, to approach it from that perspective, if you definedthe sytem to allow for it.
cause, how ya define it's all arbitrary.

if you used mroe definiitve conclusions from things like "this is a miracle so we stop looking", then you'd have a very important reason to keep the systems separate.

if your point is to ask how things ought to be, and recognize that it's arbitrary, well, i'd just point to all that i've said so far, and others.

Edited April 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c