Miracles VS Science VS Miracles in harmony with Science

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Miracles VS Science VS Miracles in harmony with Science

Postby Dr Projectile » Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:32 pm

Excuse me if i just use plain language.

I understand science to be a tool. A tool of language and a general consensus on agreed reality. Science is the classification of everything. I know that there is alot more to it than this but.
Essentially, practically it is US trying to order and classify everything that exists, is potential,and is past. It is our attempt to define everything.

This might not be satisfactory as a definition of science but it will have to do, for my point.

Science, Definition, Generalisation and statistics are all FLAWED!

I am not an advocate of any bullshit regressive religious brainwashing culture BUT, it is very important to realise science is not the "be all and end all" of everything.

I am sick to death of people assuming that just because i have spiritual beliefs that i doubt evolution and other scientific facts. It has actually made me very angry, because i cannot understand why people feel that they/I have to be either spiritual or scientific.

Here is an interesting analogy:

When the tsunami hit, tons of villages were destroyed, houses and buildings were swept away, pretty much the only ones left were mosques.

Now, there are two obviouse views here, as is often the case with most things.

1. It was an act of god.

2. It was because mosques are built to last.

Now, if i advocate the first point and agree that it was an act of god, why do these all-or-nothing, ultra-rationalist, sad-sacks assume (and heres my point) that i cant see the rational explanation, or they assume that i am ignoring the rational explanation, or they assume that you dont believe the rational explanation.

Is it not possible to fully believe both?

I believe, myself, that miracles work through a framework. This framework is partially and in a massivly flawed yet diverse and detailed way described by science.

Please try and understand what i am saying. thankyou :)
Last edited by Dr Projectile on Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cleverness is no substitute for true character.
-Unknown
Dr Projectile
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:20 pm
Location: Everywhere and just here.

Re: Miracles VS Science

Postby oreso » Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:49 pm

Dr Projectile wrote:Excuse me if i just use plain language.

I understand science to be a tool. A tool of language and a general consensus on agreed reality. Science is the classification of everything. I know that there is alot more to it than this but.
Essentially, practically it is US trying to order and classify everything that exists, is potential,and is past. It is our attempt to define everything.

This might not be satisfactory as a definition of science but it will have to do, for my point.
Thats a really silly way to put it, but since its not your main concern ill ignore for now but bring it up in a seperate thread if you like.

Science, Definition, Generalisation and statistics are all FLAWED!

I am not an advocate of any bullshit regressive religious brainwashing culture BUT, it is very important to realise science is not the "be all and end all" of everything.

I am sick to death of people assuming that just because i have spiritual beliefs that i doubt evolution and other scientific facts. It has actually made me very angry, because i cannot understand why people feel that they/I have to be either spiritual or scientific.
people believe such because spiritual doctrines make claims with scientific consequences. If you claim to follow those doctrines, you cannot be surprised if people expect you to follow them completely.

Here is an interesting analogy:

When the tsunami hit, tons of villages were destroyed, houses and buildings were swept away, pretty much the only ones left were mosques.

Now, there are two obviouse views here, as is often the case with most things.

1. It was an act of god.

2. It was because mosques are built to last.

Now, if i advocate the first point and agree that it was an act of god, why do these all-or-nothing, ultra-rationalist, sad-sacks assume (and heres my point) that i cant see the rational explanation, or they assume that i am ignoring the rational explanation, or they assume that you dont believe the rational explanation.

Is it not possible to fully believe both?
They are contrary but not contradictory, one explanation makes the other superfluous.

You need to show what is lacking in the scientific or spiritual explanation alone that can only be accounted for by the other.

For myself, the buildings were built as such that they didnt fall down. God is not required to explain the phenomena.

For religious folk, the buildings didnt fall down because they are holy, this would have happened regardless of how they are built.

In what sense is it better to believe that we are both right?

I believe, myself, that miracles work through a framework. This framework is partially and in a massivly flawed yet diverse and detailed way described by science.

Please try and understand what i am saying. thankyou :)
Miracles are troublesome.

EITHER, they break the known scientific laws rendering them obselete (those laws are descriptive, they must always describe what is in experience, even if it changed)

OR, they do not break the known laws and they are not miraculous, merely the universe going about its orderly business.

Given the second case, how can a religious person claim that certain completely scientifically accountable acts are religiously significant (miraculous) and others arent?

To use your example, why isnt it the miracle of the tsunami that lots of cute babies died in unlikely ways? Both the mosques and baby casualties are explainable in scientific terms, but one has more religious significance, but shouldnt god have an equal significance in both?
How to get more from ILP
"Supposing that Truth is a man - what then?" Frieda Nietzsche
User avatar
oreso
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: UK

Re: Miracles VS Science

Postby Dr Projectile » Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:23 pm

---double post sorry
Last edited by Dr Projectile on Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cleverness is no substitute for true character.
-Unknown
Dr Projectile
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:20 pm
Location: Everywhere and just here.

Re: Miracles VS Science

Postby Dr Projectile » Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:29 pm

[quote="oreso"]people believe such because spiritual doctrines make claims with scientific consequences. If you claim to follow those doctrines, you cannot be surprised if people expect you to follow them completely.


What doctrine have i claimed to follow? I'm pretty sure i havent claimed to follow any. And if i did why should anyone expect me to follow them to the word THAT IS RIDICULOUS!! think!


"They are contrary but not contradictory, one explanation makes the other superfluous. "

I strongly disagree...this example was desighned to illustrate exactly this point....im trying to explain that i believe honestly that both are true at once, so therefore it IS possible. Its like two people wearing 3d, red and green glasses, one says their red, the other says their green...im saying one is green and the other is red...thats what creates the three d's :)

"You need to show what is lacking in the scientific or spiritual explanation alone that can only be accounted for by the other".


The only thing lacking from either explanation is the absence of the other,
neither and both are lacking, understand my point?

"For religious folk, the buildings didnt fall down because they are holy, this would have happened regardless of how they are built."

"In what sense is it better to believe that we are both right?"


who says its better to believe both are right? its just as true to say both are wrong.
Cleverness is no substitute for true character.
-Unknown
Dr Projectile
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:20 pm
Location: Everywhere and just here.

Re: Miracles VS Science

Postby oreso » Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:14 pm

Dr Projectile wrote:What doctrine have i claimed to follow? I'm pretty sure i havent claimed to follow any. And if i did why should anyone expect me to follow them to the word THAT IS RIDICULOUS!! think!
Try not to shout.

People might well expect you follow doctrines to the word because if you are picking and choosing then you arent following the doctrine. I dont care myself, but you asked why others might.

They are contrary but not contradictory, one explanation makes the other superfluous.
I strongly disagree...this example was desighned to illustrate exactly this point....im trying to explain that i believe honestly that both are true at once, so therefore it IS possible. Its like two people wearing 3d, red and green glasses, one says their red, the other says their green...im saying one is green and the other is red...thats what creates the three d's :)
I understand your stance, but you still need to explain your reasons for it. Why do you think this?

You need to show what is lacking in the scientific or spiritual explanation alone that can only be accounted for by the other
The only thing lacking from either explanation is the absence of the other,
neither and both are lacking, understand my point?
If neither explanation is lacking, then why accept both?

In what sense is it better to believe that we are both right?
who says its better to believe both are right? its just as true to say both are wrong.
Eh? So you dont think believing both is better, and yet you do so yourself. Is it arbitrary then? A matter of taste?
How to get more from ILP
"Supposing that Truth is a man - what then?" Frieda Nietzsche
User avatar
oreso
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: UK

Postby lights » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:25 am

well dr projectile, some people believe in the either or grand narrative and some dont.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by both of those explanations being true. That god is in good design?

I do personally share a multi narrative view of the universe as being for me the most creative and enlightening. I also believe that non rational influences such as gods and angels can have real effects, so long as they are hidden within rare events beyond the scrutiny of science. If they werent then they wouldnt be non rational! :)
male 49 brit
lights
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: wiltshire england

Postby Dr Projectile » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:20 pm

lights wrote:I am not entirely sure what you mean by both of those explanations being true. That god is in good design?

:)


Not exactly,

Does a miracle have to break/appear to break physical law in order to qualify as a true miracle?
Cleverness is no substitute for true character.
-Unknown
Dr Projectile
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:20 pm
Location: Everywhere and just here.

Postby oreso » Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:29 pm

Dr Projectile wrote:Does a miracle have to break/appear to break physical law in order to qualify as a true miracle?
well if it doesnt, what is remarkable about it?
How to get more from ILP
"Supposing that Truth is a man - what then?" Frieda Nietzsche
User avatar
oreso
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: UK

Postby Mucius Scevola » Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:54 pm

Does a miracle have to break/appear to break physical law in order to qualify as a true miracle?


Yes, that is the equivalent of a miracle.

A miracle has no basis other than the way you accept to perceive it, therefore it is useless to debate whether miracles have substance or can be traced down to deterministic causes. A miracle breeds the chance of scandal, which is a situation where you either accept or refute it. Miracles exist through faith.
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
User avatar
Mucius Scevola
philosopher
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:12 pm
Location: Roman mythology

Postby Alun Aedicita » Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:10 pm

Something being a miracle isn't necessarily the same as being the result of some divine action, but a miracle has to be special and/or impossible according to normal, physical laws. Otherwise, everything would be a miracle.
Dr Projectile wrote:Science, Definition, Generalisation and statistics are all FLAWED!
The body of science and definition are indeed flawed, but the process of science includes that as a base assumption, so there isn't much foundation, especially in your logic, by which to question the method of scientific inquiry.
Dr Projectile wrote:What doctrine have i claimed to follow? I'm pretty sure i havent claimed to follow any. And if i did why should anyone expect me to follow them to the word THAT IS RIDICULOUS!! think!
So if you were to claim to follow something, we'd be acting ridiculously to expect you to follow it faithfully? Also, you've just described yourself as having a belief of spirituality; therefore, it is reasonable for us to expect that you have some doctrine (whether your own or part of a religion) that you try to adhere to.
User avatar
Alun Aedicita
 
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:44 am

Re:

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:59 am

Dr Projectile wrote:
Does a miracle have to break / appear to break physical law in order to qualify as a true miracle ?

In theory yes but all the supposed miracles in recorded history either cannot be corroborated or have entirely perfect scientific explanations for them
Even phenomena that cannot currently be explained by science will still have a scientific explanation for them - even if some remain forever unknown
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users