I have not come across Christopher Hichens but I do like the analogy between miracles and computer technology in general.

I think that many people who reject the idea of the supernatural get frustrated with computer software and systems not seeing any links with how the makers are a bit like God. I once had a friend who,in a state of relapse of psychotic illness was banging his head repeatedly, saying 'God is a computer.' That was at the time I was questioning religious experiences deeply and even though my friend was unwell I could see the point he was making.

I think that we are beginning to take digital technology for granted, not seeing how some of it verges on the miraculous itself. We expect Wifi to be working and moan if is not fast enough. We expect the books we want to be downloaded at the flick of a switch.

I sometimes think we sit back on our devices expecting divine answers to appear on our devices has some relationships to Moses reading on tablets. If there is a God perhaps 'they' communicate the miraculous in digital form.

I am not sure if what I am saying is what you were saying, but at least you have a first response to your thread.

God is a computer. — Jack Cummins

I wonder...I wonder...truthseeker. What would it entail if god is computer? Kindly factor in the possibility that this might be a mistake in that the computer may simply be one that is running the simulation i.e. there's someone behind the screen kinda thing, bashing the keys, creating the code, etc.

Perhaps rather than a computer being God, the computer is made in the image of God. Or perhaps I am evolving a new computeromorphism.

By the way, I had imagined you more as a school teacher than as an IT person. Having worked in mental health care mostly, perhaps you were involved in working with the computer packages I was using, but I am in England and I don't know if you are. I used to get really angry when the packages' behaviour. It was like some divine being was playing tricks. Sometimes the packages would stick or a whole page I had written would vanish into limbo. There was this to cope with and patients banging on the office windows, desperate for attention.

Also, we had a few patients smashing computers. I remember being in the process of giving out medication and a man leaned over the medication counter and pushed the computer to the floor. Perhaps it was his anger towards God.

A penny for your thoughts... — TheMadFool

Just the one that you're no doubt expecting...

We view religion as, another word for it is, faith(s) as if to say that, in the context of faith defined as belief sans evidence, religions are belief systems that are completely lacking evidence of any kind.

This is false for what are so-called miracles if not evidence of a divine nature. — TheMadFool

Quite clearly you cannot use the claims of a religion -- such as miracles -- as evidence for that religion. Belief in miracles is part of Christian dogma, not some separate source. Now if you had evidence, not just claims, that a given miracle occurred, then that would be something. However the presence of evidence would then remove the necessity of faith and the peculiarity of a particular religion, insofar as it would generally thought to have occurred by believers and atheists alike. It would be not a miracle but a mystery.

However the presence of evidence would then remove the necessity of faith — Kenosha Kid

That's what I've been getting wrong all this time. Christianity isn't about faith. There's evidence, at least it's meant to be such - Jesus miracles.

That's what I've been getting wrong all this time. Christianity isn't about faith. There's evidence, at least it's meant to be such - Jesus miracles. — TheMadFool

They're anecdotes from the same dubious sources they're supposed to be evidence for. They don't pass any muster as evidence. But I do see what you mean: they are meant to play the same role evidence. After all, these stories originate from a time when record-checking wasn't generally possible.

We view religion as, another word for it is, faith(s) as if to say that, in the context of faith defined as belief sans evidence, religions are belief systems that are completely lacking evidence of any kind. — TheMadFool

This is a 'myth of the enlightenment'. The literature of world religions including commentarial materials and apocrypha, contain vast numbers of myths and legends, but also historical accounts and records of events beliieved to have occurred. Of course hardly any of this will meet scientific standards of evidence and has been elaborated and redacted over millenia. But the Enlightenment more or less declares that, on this basis, it is as if none of what is recounted ever occurred, it should all be taken out of consideration. Then 'the burden of proof' is placed on the believer, to demonstrate why any of what she believes is true, 'without a shred of evidence!'

However there is actually a data set for miracle cures, or cures that seem to have been effected by prayers to Cathoic saints. Those are the records required for the beatification of saints in the church, and have been kept for centuries. The beatification process requires two bona fide, attributable miracles, and the process of obtaining those bona fides is extremely rigorous. See Pondering Miracles, Medical and Religious.

But I do see what you mean — Kenosha Kid

Thank you. My main aim is to somehow soften the blow of late Hitchens' declaration that the association between miracles and God is too weak to be of any significance.

I seem to have forgotten to mention that the "suspensions/violationz of the laws of nature" (miracles) must be authentic in the sense that it's not the case that they were/are perceived as such because of ignorance. To illustrate the point, a time traveller who takes his plane to the bronze age and takes to the air isn't going to count as a miracle for the reason that it's going to seen as "miraculous" because iron age folks would be ignorant of the principles of aeronautics. However, if a cup broken into pieces suddenly reassembles and becomes whole again or your long-dead grandfather whose ashes you personally disposed off in the ocean appears at your front doorstep, that would be a bona fide miracle. You get the picture, right?

It appears that miracles, defined in the Hitchensian sense as above, is a function of ignorance. The more ignorant one is, the more miracles one sees and that sets the bar very high for miracles because not only is it necessary to prove that a suspension/violation of the laws of nature has occurred but too that the belief that a miracle has occured isn't because of a lacuna in our knowledge. The former condition is an easier one to meet than the latter.

What gives?

Is Hitchens' definition too stringent? After all, it makes a nigh impossible demand - that our knowledge of the laws of nature is both complete and accurate. Is it possible to know that we know everything there is to know? Thereby hangs a tale. I wish to discuss that if you're game?

If we relax the criterion for miracles, say by declaring that only current, the most up-to-date, knowledge of the laws of nature matter, there's a real and unsettling chance that we might end up believing and worshipping god/gods which is/are, at this point, simply various manifestations of our ignorance.

This reminds me of Socrates who famously announced, "I know that I know nothing." Juxtapose this with the words of the Delphic Oracle: "Socrates is the wisest man there is." In a weird but palpably true sense, if wisdom, the be all and end all of philosophy, means to be cognizant of one's ignorance, it makes sense to, well, worship it, no? Could it be, is it possible, that the human tendency to immediately atrribute miraculous events to the divine, to god, is an indication that, deep down, we all know what wisdom really is - the Socratic paradox - and hence the, sometimes irresistable, urge to worship the unknown?

Of course hardly any of this will meet scientific standards of evidence and has been elaborated and redacted over millenia. — Wayfarer

Can you kindly read my reply to Kenosha Kid above?

However is actually a data set for miracle cures, or cures that seem to have been effected by prayers to Cathoic saints. Those are the records required for the beatification of saints in the church, and have been kept for centuries. The beatification process requires two bona fide, attributable miracles, and the process of obtaining those bona fides is extremely rigorous. See Pondering Miracles, Medical and Religious. — Wayfarer

I just recently got wind of the beatification process. I was surprised that the criteria were quite so stringent. Nonetheless, it seems the Pope can and has relax(ed) the conditions for sainthood by, for instance, reducing the required number of miracles from the standard two to one. Thanks.

even so, there are thousands of cases that are documented. That author I linked to is a self-proclaimed atheist and wasn't persuaded by her study of these cases to convert, however it did cause her to re-evalauate some aspects of her world-view.

however it did cause her to re-evalauate some aspects of her world-view. — Wayfarer

In my world that counts as a win! :up:

Is Hitchens' definition too stringent? After all, it makes a nigh impossible demand - that our knowledge of the laws of nature is both complete and accurate. Is it possible to know that we know everything there is to know? Thereby hangs a tale. I wish to discuss that if you're game? — TheMadFool

Well, let's compare:

if a cup broken into pieces suddenly reassembles and becomes whole again or your long-dead grandfather whose ashes you personally disposed off in the ocean appears at your front doorstep, that would be a bona fide miracle. — TheMadFool

with things that, historically, science couldn't explain but now can, such as the blackbody radiation spectrum, or the stability of the atom, or the orbit of Mercury, or the cause of radiation, or how and why children inherit characteristics of their parents, or how and why lightning occurs, why winds blow, etc., etc. Most of these have not been considered miracles, merely the scientific mysteries I mentioned earlier. Some, like weather phenomena, might have been considered the will of a god, but not the will of a human fulfilled by a god (a miracle).

Scientific mysteries -- the holes you refer to in our understanding of natural law -- are not like miracles because they are generally true, we just don't know why. Miracles on the other hand are specific instances of specific people's desires being manifest by specific gods; as such, they are as good as their historical evidence.

And the problem with historical evidence for miracles is threefold: first, the event is almost always claimed rather than demonstrated (i.e. there is no evidence that the event ever took place); second, that the miracle worker in question is responsible for that event can never be established; third, that the means by which the actor achieved the event is often miraculous only nominally (i.e. it was perfectly possible for the actor to bring about the event without divine assistance).

Which brings us to the other obvious difference between a scientific mystery and a miracle, which Wayfarer has kindly brought into the conversation:

However there is actually a data set for miracle cures, or cures that seem to have been effected by prayers to Cathoic saints. Those are the records required for the beatification of saints in the church, and have been kept for centuries. The beatification process requires two bona fide, attributable miracles, and the process of obtaining those bona fides is extremely rigorous. — Wayfarer

The Vatican's criterion for recognising a miracle is that no natural explanation will do, which is problematic because the Pope is also the head of the church that insists that miracles occur at all. They are like a prosecuting attorney who really wants to be your defence attorney, and the judge and jury to boot. One would expect that, if the Vatican genuinely were this adept at spotting deviations from natural law, the scientific community would be racing to find natural explanations for these apparent miracles. But they don't.

One could interpret this as a 100% ubiquitous disdain for the Catholic church, a conspiracy of silence if you will, so as not to lend weight to archaic ideas. Or, more reasonably, one could conclude that the scientific community see nothing in these miracles worth investigating, and nothing in Vatican's CV that lends weight to their claims of breaches of natural law.

For example, one of Mother Teresa's alleged miracles is the cure of Monica Besra's cancer by placing a locket of Teresa on her breast. A witness claimed that light shone from the locket and eradicated the cancer, and that is the judgment of the Vatican. The judgment of medical science is quite different: Besra didn't have cancer at all, but a cyst caused by tuberculosis, for which she was medicated and treated by doctors for nine months prior to the cyst's eradication. It is a fortunate case of investigation and medicine -- two things forbidden by Teresa who left her worst patients in agony rather than allow them more than paracetamol -- working, which happens regularly enough to not merit attention.

Miracles are not like scientific mysteries and scientific mysteries are not like miracles. This is why imperfect knowledge, which may support and even incline people toward miraculous answers to mysterious questions, supports but does not explain miracles imo.

scientific mystery and a miracle — Kenosha Kid

I'll focus on this point in your post. I hope @Wayfarer will chime in at some point.

We've been discussing matters as if there's a fundamental antagonism between science and religion. Forget miracles for a moment and consider the fact that, if I'm correct, scientists thought/think of themselves as involved in an enterprise which they affectionately describe as reading the mind of god. In other words, contrary to religious folk who seem to see the hand of god in the extraordinary, scientists see god in the ordinary, the so-called laws of nature. What's the deal here? I mean if both the ordinary and the extraordinary can be interpreted as having divine origins how do we disprove the existence of god? A classic case of eating the cake and having it too!

Forget miracles for a moment and consider the fact that, if I'm correct, scientists thought/think of themselves as involved in an enterprise which they affectionately describe as reading the mind of god. — TheMadFool

Some individual scientists have, because science does not close its doors to the religious, and the religious see natural law as the will of God. Speaking as a lapsed physicist, I can vouch that this is an atypical view of what science is about in my experience.

extraordinary, scientists see god in the ordinary, the so-called laws of nature. What's the deal here? I mean if both the ordinary and the extraordinary can be interpreted as having divine origins how do we disprove the existence of god? A classic case of eating the cake and having it too! — TheMadFool

Yes, it's a hugely circular argument. If both X and ~X are support the same argument, the argument can be dismissed as not meaningful.

This is absent knowledge of the history. "Science" under pagan belief was departmental and for the Greeks essentially impossible because nature was considered essentially imperfect. Aristotle created a science of observation, Plato looked to ideals. Pythagoreans to the math. Monotheism - Christianity - changed that in supposing nature made by God, therefore perfect and a proper subject for a universal science. Science, then, presupposes God in that science presupposes one and only one set of rules. Insofar as science uses the rules but does not account for them, it remains accurate to say that all scientists presuppose (some notion somehow of) a God. And I suppose it equally accurate to say that most would describe that God as the unknown/unknowable. "That" to distinguish it from whatever their personal faith might dictate as a form of God.

As to miracles, the question is whether they're approached from a view informed by science, or that as an apologist for the religion that claims the miracle.

Monotheism - Christianity - changed that in supposing nature made by God, therefore perfect and a proper subject for a universal science. Science, then, presupposes God in that science presupposes one and only one set of rules. — tim wood

That doesn't follow. Even if Christians were the first monotheists (they weren't), and the first scientists (they weren't), the universe existed for scientific study whether some people first claim it as the work of their god or not. Certainly now, whatever the history of Christianity or science, scientists do not presuppose the existence of God in order to study the universe.

All the Christians I've known thought there was good evidence (and arguments) for the beliefs. Faith was more of putting your trust in God kind of thing rather than some Kierkegaard leap of reason.

The only exceptions I can think of were very "liberal" believers who didn't like to define God and made sure their beliefs were consistent with science, but still thought there was some sort of spirit to the universe along with maybe an afterlife. Jesus was a good moral teacher who had some non-literal spiritual insights and all that jazz. The resurrection was some kind of metaphor for personal enlightenment.

I'm an atheist, so I think they're both wrong, but the first category has their own evidence based on a worldview that is somewhat at odds with our full modern understanding.

The Vatican's criterion for recognising a miracle is that no natural explanation will do, which is problematic because the Pope is also the head of the church that insists that miracles occur at all. — Kenosha Kid

Many accounts of miracles are rejected on the basis of scientific evidence. Jacalyn Duffyn, whose article I linked to, says:

Over hundreds of hours in the Vatican archives, I examined the files of more than 1,400 miracle investigations — at least one from every canonization between 1588 and 1999. A vast majority — 93 percent over all and 96 percent for the 20th century — were stories of recovery from illness or injury, detailing treatment and testimony from baffled physicians.

If a sick person recovers through prayer and without medicine, that’s nice, but not a miracle. She had to be sick or dying despite receiving the best of care. The church finds no incompatibility between scientific medicine and religious faith; for believers, medicine is just one more manifestation of God’s work on earth.

Perversely then, this ancient religious process [of beatification], intended to celebrate exemplary lives, is hostage to the relativistic wisdom and temporal opinions of modern science. Physicians, as nonpartisan witnesses and unaligned third parties, are necessary to corroborate the claims of hopeful postulants. For that reason alone, illness stories top miracle claims. I never expected such reverse skepticism and emphasis on science within the church.

So I think it's a falsehood to claim that the Church denies or ignores science in these matters.

Don't get me wrong - I completely accept that religious institutions often block or stand in the way of science. I have zero respect for, for example, religious ordinances against blood transfusions, or faith healing over-riding medical treatment for cancer. Religious prejudice blocked progress in countless ways in times past. But in these cases, there is considerable scientific testimony to which due weight was given, and in many cases it was decisive.

if I'm correct, scientists thought/think of themselves as involved in an enterprise which they affectionately describe as reading the mind of god — TheMadFool

Hawking used that phrase in his book Brief History of Time, but considering his lifelong animosity towards religion, it can at best be described as hubristic.

In other words, contrary to religious folk who seem to see the hand of god in the extraordinary, scientists see god in the ordinary, the so-called laws of nature. What's the deal here? I mean if both the ordinary and the extraordinary can be interpreted as having divine origins how do we disprove the existence of god? A classic case of eating the cake and having it too! — TheMadFool

This is why I keep repeating the fundamental importance of studying the history of ideas. It is 'a field of research in history that deals with the expression, preservation, and change of human ideas over time. The history of ideas is a sister-discipline to, or a particular approach within, intellectual history' (wikipedia). Many fundamental ideas such as substance, agency, evolution, mind, and so on, were gradually developed and refined over centuries. Through the history of ideas, you examine how these fundamental conceptions shape-shifted over time. It is very, very different to religious apologetics, but it also provides no comfort to positivism.

As for the role of science in proving or disproving God's existence, a recent book worth considering is Karen Armstrong, A Case for God. Armstrong too is more an historian of ideas than religious apologist. One of her arguments in this book was that the early moderns too easily assumed that the marvels of natural science 'shewed God's handiwork' - Newton certainly did - inadvertently paving the way for LaPlace's declaration of 'having no need of that hypothesis.' It became increasingly easy to show that, rather than saying anything about God, science's enormous progress in understanding the universe showed no need of such an explanation. This finally culminated in vast misunderstanding of what, exactly, was meant by 'God' at all, save as a kind of placeholder for 'what science has yet to work out'.

But Armstrong points out that the various dogmatic expressions of religious ideas were never intended as what moderns understand by 'propositions' or 'proofs':

...Myth was a programme of action. When a mythical narrative was symbolically re-enacted, it brought to light within the practitioner something real about human existence and the way our humanity worked, even if its insights, like those of art, could not be proven rationally. If you did not act upon it, it would remain as incomprehensible and abstract – like the rules of a board game, which seem impossibly convoluted, dull and meaningless until you start to play.

Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvāṇa, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd.

The other point you might consider is 'the conflict thesis' which maintains that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science and that it inevitably leads to hostility. It is obviously writ large in many debates on this forum and the books of popular atheism. It leads to the view that naturally only one or the other can be true, that if one holds to science then one must abandon faith.

I believe I previously mentioned Georges Lemaître.

In any case, I completely reject 'the conflict thesis'. In a nutshell, the error of fundamentalism is to insist that religious texts are literally true, and that if science contradicts them then it must be false. But for those who never accepted the literal truth of scripture, then the fact that they're not literally true, doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's just business as usual.

scientists do not presuppose the existence of God — Kenosha Kid

However, 'naturalism assumes nature'. It assumes that the sensory domain, vastly amplified by electronic devices, possesses an inherent reality.

That doesn't follow. — Kenosha Kid

Doesn't have to; it's a fact. The modern idea is that in general there is one science with various applications. Which appears to be the case. Which wasn't the case. Agreed monotheism is much older than 2,000 years. Agreed the world was the world. Agreed there have always been people who tried to understand the world. Not agreed their presuppositions, the basic axioms of their thinking, were modern in any sense.

Metaphorically, one group played checkers, another chess, a third bingo, a fourth, backgammon, and so forth - with mainly little in common. Monotheism was the ground for the possibility of putting it all together under unified principles. And it was a long process, taking until the Enlightenment.

And if you do not think most scientists believe in - presuppose - god in some sense, then what do they believe in? Turtles all the way down?

Not agreed their presuppositions, the basic axioms of their thinking, were modern in any sense. — tim wood

I never said otherwise.

Agreed monotheism is much older than 2,000 years. Agreed the world was the world. Agreed there have always been people who tried to understand the world. Not agreed their presuppositions, the basic axioms of their thinking, were modern in any sense. — tim wood

Doesn't add up to: scientists presuppose a god.

And if you do not think most scientists believe in - presuppose - god in some sense, then what do they believe in? Turtles all the way down? — tim wood

This might astonish you, but the choice isn't God or turtles. In fact, those are both wrong answers based on ignorance to quite different questions.

for believers, medicine is just one more manifestation of God’s work on earth.

Precisely, atheists, given that they're in the business of refuting religion, are in an uncomfortable position - damned if you do, damned if you don't!

So I think it's a falsehood to claim that the Church denies or ignores science in these matters. — Wayfarer

This seems to be a different state of affairs in that the Church is going against science in the sense that healing/recovery happens in a medically/scientifically inexplicable way. How do we square this attitude with that above: for believers, medicine is just one more manifestation of God's work on earth."? The Church's ability to have it both ways must be mighty frustrating to atheists trying to build a solid refutation of religion in this respect.

One of her arguments in this book was that the early moderns too easily assumed that the marvels of natural science 'shewed God's handiwork' - Newton certainly did - inadvertently paving the way for LaPlace's declaration of 'having no need of that hypothesis.' It became increasingly easy to show that, rather than saying anything about God, science's enormous progress in understanding the universe showed no need of such an explanation. This finally culminated in vast misunderstanding of what, exactly, was meant by 'God' at all, save as a kind of placeholder for 'what science has yet to work out'. — Wayfarer

Well, I don't see how it's wrong for people to have thought that 'marvels of natural science 'shewed God's handiwork'"? After all, theism's claim is the god created this universe; surely his handiwork must be visible in all things, big and small.

the conflict thesis — Wayfarer

No smoke without fire is all I can say at the moment. Perhaps the notion of a conflict between religion and science isn't wrong per se but just flawed with that little grain of truth that people cling onto to keep the issue afloat.

So I think it's a falsehood to claim that the Church denies or ignores science in these matters. — Wayfarer

In effect, it is obliged to interpret the action of medicine, along with the resilience of the human body, viz:

She had to be sick or dying despite receiving the best of care

and the function of medicine itself, viz:

medicine is just one more manifestation of God’s work on earth

as all part of the miracle.

I've cited one instance already where the church misrepresented the medical opinion of doctors to claim a recovery for their religion. One can do that all day, but the broader point stands in its stead: if these miracles pointed at recoveries despite the failures of medical science, they would be of broad concern and interest. As it happens, no one outside the church finds anything miraculous in such cases.

On which, and getting back to the point in hand, I guess I should qualify my earlier statement: miracles do not look like what scientific mysteries look like to scientists, the case of Teresa being a perfect and usefully recent example.

if these miracles pointed at recoveries despite the failures of medical science, they would be of broad concern and interest. — Kenosha Kid

As noted, Jacalyn Duffyn whose interest in these cases grew from her own expert testimony, found much evidence; she’s a haematologist, historian of science, and as a professed atheist, is outside the Church. But I think I do understand why, a priori, they all must be considered fallacious.

Perhaps the notion of a conflict between religion and science isn't wrong per se but just flawed with that little grain of truth that people cling onto to keep the issue afloat. — TheMadFool

It's certainly true in many cases. But it became a major theme in Western culture during and after the Enlightenment. The conflict I see is between religious fundamentalism and scientific materialism. But it's a big world with room for many perspectives.

Well, I don't see how it's wrong for people to have thought that 'marvels of natural science 'shewed God's handiwork'"? — TheMadFool

Armstrong's argument is not so much that it was wrong, but that it backfired - that this kind of rhetoric could just as easily be used against Christians as by them.

It's certainly true in many cases. But it became a major theme in Western culture during and after the Enlightenment. The conflict I see is between religious fundamentalism and scientific materialism. But it's a big world with room for many perspectives. — Wayfarer

Do you mean religious fundamentalists take the good book literally and scientific materialists have their own version of the good book which they too take literally?

Makes sense. The extremes are likely to be poles apart from each other.

Is there any way to find common ground? A way out for those who, say, want to have the best of both worlds, so to speak? I mean there maybe many religious scientists in the world? How do they manage?

Armstrong's argument is not so much that it was wrong, but that it backfired - that this kind of rhetoric could just as easily be used against Christians as by them. — Wayfarer

Ah! :up:

As noted, Jacalyn Duffyn whose interest in these cases grew from her own expert testimony, found much evidence — Wayfarer

This in no way constitutes broad concern and interest.

Is there any way to find common ground? A way out for those who, say, want to have the best of both worlds, so to speak? — TheMadFool

I think so. People have found wisdom in the stories of the Bible, particularly the teachings of Christ, without insisting on a literalist, historical interpretation that must be treated as perfectly and eternally true. To quote Monty Python, there's little to quarrel with Mr Christ about. The contention has historically arisen when science has discovered facts contrary to literalist interpretations of the Old Testament.

I think so. People have found wisdom in the stories of the Bible, particularly the teachings of Christ, without insisting on a literalist, historical interpretation that must be treated as perfectly and eternally true. To quote Monty Python, there's little to quarrel with Mr Christ about. The contention has historically arisen when science has discovered facts contrary to literalist interpretations of the Old Testament — Kenosha Kid

Indeed, but how long until, how many words can we remove from Hamlet, Hamlet stops being Hamlet? How many? The literal truth of the Bible is now dead and buried. What's next? The miracles? Then? Jesus' historicity? I sense, slippery slope fallacy notwithstanding, a slow but steady progression of the Bible from fact to fiction.

Some individual scientists have, because science does not close its doors to the religious, and the religious see natural law as the will of God. Speaking as a lapsed physicist, I can vouch that this is an atypical view of what science is about in my experience. — Kenosha Kid

I see but surely, you can sense how reasonable the sentiment is. If god created the universe then, necessarily, all in it - matter, energy, the laws that govern them - are god's doing.

Yes, it's a hugely circular argument. If both X and ~X are support the same argument, the argument can be dismissed as not meaningful — Kenosha Kid

It's more of of hypothesis/theory issue to me. If a hypothesis that accomodates both a certain proposition and its contradiction then that hypothesis is useless not scientific. This, however, seems to be biased point of view - looking at religion from a scientific lens.

What would happen if we did the reverse? If we bring a religious perspective to science, there's no problem at all for the simple reason that science is in the business of deciphering the laws of nature, laws that god created. It appears then that, in this respect at least, the dissatisfied party is science - science is accusing religion of being non-scientific. Religion, on the other hand, can be said to be applauding the work of scientists in their efforts to understand god's laws.

Too, @Wayfarer made a mention of Pierre Simone Laplace's reply to Napoleon's question, "where is god in all this?" which was "I had no need for this hypothesis". Notice Laplace didn't say, "that hypothesis (god) is false", he simply asserted that god was/is unnecessary to the entreprise of discovering and mathematically describing the laws of nature. :chin: You can take it from there.

I sense, slippery slope fallacy notwithstanding, a progression of the Bible's status from fact to fiction. — TheMadFool

I think it's more of a qualitative shift from logos to mythos, but yeah, that's the fate of all religions it seems. Nonetheless, while I wholeheartedly refute that Christianity is the foundation of science, it is the historical keystone of our moral superstructure. I think it will always be the most relevant mythology.

If god created the universe then, necessarily, all in it - matter, energy, the laws that govern them - are god's doing. — TheMadFool

Sure. But then it is the creationist that presupposes, not the scientist.

It appears then that, in this respect at least, the dissatisfied party is science - science is accusing religion of being non-scientific. Religion, on the other hand, can be said to be applauding the work of scientists in their efforts to understand god's laws. — TheMadFool

And yet historically the opposite is true. Even the new atheist movement was driven by the intolerance of religious zealots toward e.g. teaching science in science classrooms, or an insistence on teaching non-science *as science*.

Perhaps it is the tacit understanding that we will never know everything, that the God hypothesis, while having no scientific relevance, will never be falsified, which makes science disinterested in religion, while creationists who believe in the concept of blasphemy do have cause for upset when evidence contrary to *specific* creationist narratives is discovered.

Because that's the difference between what you're describing and what has typically occurred. You're describing a generic, non-detailed creationism that can absorb any scientific discovery and claim it for a god. What we actually have is specific creationist myths that are falsifiable even when the underlying motif -- the God hypothesis -- is not.

I think it's more of a qualitative shift from logos to mythos, but yeah, that's the fate of all religions it seems. Nonetheless, while I wholeheartedly refute that Christianity is the foundation of science, it is the historical keystone of our moral superstructure. I think it will always be the most relevant mythology. — Kenosha Kid

Then, the matter is settled, cut-and-dried, as they say, for you. You've already used the logos-mythos paradigm on the issue and labeled Christianity as a mythology. Good for you.

Sure. But then it is the creationist that presupposes, not the scientist. — Kenosha Kid

Well, I mentioned Laplace, a, if not the, paradigmatic case of science and its proponents. Even the great Newton of France said no more than "I didn't need that (god) hypothesis". It falls short, noticeably, from asserting "the god hypothesis is false". It says a lot in my world. Perhaps you might want to look into it at your leisure. You just might pick up something on your truth scanner.

And yet historically the opposite is true. Even the new atheist movement was driven by the intolerance of religious zealots toward e.g. teaching science in science classrooms, or an insistence on teaching non-science *as science*. — Kenosha Kid

Perhaps, but look at from a best-case scenario viewpoint. If the religious believed that god created the universe, they have no reason at all to level criticism against science; after all, the raison d'etre of science is to understand the universe (creation).

Perhaps it is the tacit understanding that we will never know everything, that the God hypothesis, while having no scientific relevance, will never be falsified, which makes science disinterested in religion, while creationists who believe in the concept of blasphemy do have cause for upset when evidence contrary to *specific* creationist narratives is discovered. — Kenosha Kid

You're looking at from the standpoint of authority I believe. Religion has authority and thus so-called entities like blasphemy and heresy. Science has the same motivations [the phrase "scientific heresy" makes complete sense], if not the power to translate these motivations into laws like the ones we have in religion against blasphemy and heresy. Reminds me of Animal Farm by Goerge Orwell - fine, the animals at the farm got rid of the humans, however, the pigs that replaced them were no better.

Because that's the difference between what you're describing and what has typically occurred. You're describing a generic, non-detailed creationism that can absorb any scientific discovery and claim it for a god. What we actually have is specific creationist myths that are falsifiable even when the underlying motif -- the God hypothesis -- is not. — Kenosha Kid

Falsifiable? I recall reading a book once that basically said that propositions don't exist in isolation and that they form a complex structure much like a network or a web with each proposition connected, existentially, to others. The bottom line, is "creationist myths [that] are falsifiable" must exist in a framework of other assumptions, assumptions that may not be, you know, strong enough to provide sufficient support for the claim. Personally, I haven't tried it myself but I'm fairly certain that the trail of assumptions for the claims of science won't end in "happy place" if you know what I mean.

Then, the matter is settled, cut-and-dried, as they say, for you. You've already used the logos-mythos paradigm on the issue and labeled Christianity as a mythology. Good for you. — TheMadFool

This is following the supposed rejection of a literal, historical interpretation of perfect and eternal truth. The pseudo-historical aspects thus yielded would constitute a mythology, yes.

Perhaps, but look at from a best-case scenario viewpoint. If the religious believed that god created the universe, they have no reason at all to level criticism against science; after all, the raison d'etre of science is to understand the universe (creation). — TheMadFool

Yes, but like I said, the religious are not only defending the God hypothesis; they are defending specific historical narratives that *are* falsified by science.

Galileo did not uncover that God did not exist; he merely concluded that the Earth orbited the Sun. By your argument, the church should have been happy to know God's universe better, but they weren't because, above and beyond the God hypothesis, church dogma placed the Earth at the centre of the universe.

the phrase "scientific heresy" makes complete sense — TheMadFool

The phrase "scientific orthodoxy" or "scientific consensus" makes sense. I've never heard of "scientific heresy" and would describe any scientist employing it as histrionic at best.

The bottom line, is "creationist myths [that] are falsifiable" must exist in a framework of other assumptions, assumptions that may not be, you know, strong enough to provide sufficient support for the claim. Personally, I haven't tried it myself but I'm fairly certain that the trail of assumptions for the claims of science won't end in "happy place" if you know what I mean. — TheMadFool

I meant 'falsifiable' in precisely the same sense it is meant in meeting the criterion of scientific hypothesis. If we next have to undermine the basis of the falsifiability criterion, one can bypass most of this conversation entirely and just have one of those threads that pop up from time to time stating that science doesn't work, etc, in which case religion presumably has nothing to worry about.