In response to a readers previous comment, "Very interesting article on the relationship between science and miracles here."
I am a scientist and have been for 20 years and understand the appeal of the article. It’s my training but I respectfully tire of modernist arguments. Even I have moved away from the mindset of proving truth with rational thought entirely and scientific analysis, for they are merely tools, and not proofs in themselves.
Truth is not something we subjectively invent with our tools… it is a reality we encounter.
Truth is bigger than our arguments and rational conditions for we did not invent Truth or miracles, but merely tried to explain them. I sense too often that the answer is posed before the question has been asked with such things because our truths are relative to the biases of our individual conditions; ie we convince ourselves of what we want to believe. I don’t won’t to live that way anymore. I am happy to realise that I can’t explain everything away and that the unexplainable happens.
“The future no longer belongs entirely to cold and calculating brains--those who know only "sequence," "literalness," and "analysis". It belongs, increasingly, to creativity, artistry, and empathy--metaphor, meaning, and emotion--pattern, synthesis, and the big picture.” (Dr Thomas Hohstadt)
With regard to miracles, I feel that the authentic has been clouded over by the wishful thinkers, the presumptuous and the money grabbers. But the miraculous doesn’t draw attention to itself, just as JC’s water that was turned into wine went un-noticed in a back room. The miracle simply serves its purpose, not itself.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Even I have moved away from the mindset of proving truth with rational thought entirely and scientific analysis, for they are merely tools, and not proofs in themselves.
Hi Garth. Despite appearances, I think I share some of your suspicion towards modernism, and its claims to represent capital "T" Truth. (Of course, as an atheist I am equally suspicious of religions that make similar claims. The point, however, is that figuring out what constitutes Truth is more properly the province of religion/philosophy/metaphysics not science.)
And I agree with what you say about science and logic. Science, in a nutshell, deals with facts (i.e. facts about the material, observable world which is the province of science), not Truth. Facts are "true" only in a tentative sense, and can be falsified by the discovery of new evidence. Similarly, logic is not concerned with the establishment of Truth but rather with preserving consistency between conclusions and their premisses.
Having acknowledged all that, I still think Drange's assessment of the relationship between science and miracles is fairly spot-on. Indeed, all he's doing in this essay--and he makes this point right from the start--is to try and set the boundaries between science and religion by arguing that, in the context of science, the miraculous does not count as an explanation for natural phenomena.
Why doesn't the miraculous count as an explanation for science. If science may be defined as the seeking of natural explanations for natural phenomena, positing the miraculous as an explanation of a natural phenomenon is, from a scientific point of view, simply another way of ruling out the possibility that a natural explanation exists for that particulr phenomenon (hence we must accept the theological explanation). And a scientist would object: "How can you absolutely rule out the possibility that a natural explanation will ever be found, even if it has not been found yet?"
Truth is not something we subjectively invent with our tools… it is a reality we encounter.
Which "truth" are we talking about? If you are talking about ontological reality, then I'd agree that ontological reality (ie facts) are things that are only explained by our theories, rather than the theories holding any ontologically factual status.
As for truth being non-subjective, well by definition it (little "t" is) is actually subjective; truths are the product of a process of consensus and don't necessarily reflect an ontological reality. Of course, if you are talking about big "T" truths, the truths that will stay true should all the observers drop dead, then I'm with you.
A bit annoying that the term "truth" is used in science philosophy in the "Big T" manner (eg. determining truth value.) Still, if you consider Popperian "truth" and the implications of falsifiability (hard or soft) then there is an unavoidable conclusion that all truths are (as Arthur points out) tentative.
There is a paper around by Singer, discussing how corrigibility necessarily follows falsifiability. Can't find it at the moment, but if I do, I'll post.
Basically though, with the necessity of corrigibility, I would also argue comes an unavoidable inference that scientific theorem are models/explanations, not indicators of ontological fact.
I won't pester you with my notion of multiple-demarcation (and plural* sciences) because it'll only complicate things. Suffice to say, my position on epistemology and science philosophy is a little bit different. For the sake of conversation, I tend to assume we are talking about "a single stereotypical construct of western science."
Bruce
* NOT RELATIVISTIC!!!
Yes Bruce...Big T Truth, which makes the comment quite simple.
For me its when we talk about little t truth that subjectivity begins. As a Christian I maintain that Truth is bigger than us and I find the modernist principles quite condescending to Truth when they argue "Well if 'A' is true then it follows that 'B' is true also" type of stuff.
Truth doesn't have to be contained by our feeble systems, although our feeble systems are all we have so they become inetersting theoretical persuits for gaining new perspectives. They give us anchors but Truth will not be held accountable to our systems for it is the reality we encounter....not the reality we define.
Arthur, I understand your suspicions of religions that claim the same...(I think)... as I rather dislike Christendom where it thinks it has all the answers. We claim Jesus is the answer, but what the hell is the question? Since when did an answer precede a question? The question gives the answer its life. We must first articulate the question but this deeper journey is often denied by those who will rush in with the pre-prepared stock religious answers.
I don’t wish to be pedantic but here’s my frustration with these types of heartland modernist discussions. The approach of the author you refer to immediately defines miracle in his terms which rather confines the discussion…..a fairly common trait for arguments with pre-decided outcomes. He says, “Let us define a "miracle" simply as an event which violates at least one law of nature” seems fairly innocuous but then he uses that definition as fortress by saying “If miracles violate laws of nature, then they could never be explained by appeal to natural law” and at that point I begin to think Ho Hum here we go again!
So his definition has merely set the stage for the conclusion he wishes his thinkers to be led to…..like non-thinking sheep. His definition leaves the explanation of miracles to ‘magic’ rather than natural explainable principles. We are led down his path of reason…which is not the only path…so this becomes manipulation. I can’t see why God would not use cellular division (a natural process, natural law) to effect his purpose in a healing that had nothing to do with medical treatment, but everything to do with prayer for example.
Having said that I have many a problem with the many claimed miracles these days as I smell phonies!
The approach of the author you refer to immediately defines miracle in his terms which rather confines the discussion…..a fairly common trait for arguments with pre-decided outcomes.
Fair enough . . . but what, then, is a miracle? We'll get to that later.
What you seem to be saying here is that the problem with Drange's argument is that he presents it in the form of an argument. I.e. he presents a thesis--"The concept of the miraculous is incompatible with science"--and then gives supporting reasons. I don't see why this is a flaw.
So his definition has merely set the stage for the conclusion he wishes his thinkers to be led to…..like non-thinking sheep.
Sorry: but this is grossly unfair and just plain condescending. At what point exactly do we become "non-thinking sheep?" The point where we accept his premise: "Let us define a miracle as x?" Or where we accept his conclusion: "The miraculous is incompatible with science?" Or perhaps where we accept that if the premisses of his argument are true, his conclusion must be true?
I'm sorry, but where's the "manipulation" here? His premisses are plain to see. His conclusion is plain to see. How, then, is the wool being pulled over our eyes?
His definition leaves the explanation of miracles to ‘magic’ rather than natural explainable principles. . . . I can’t see why God would not use cellular division (a natural process, natural law) to effect his purpose in a healing that had nothing to do with medical treatment, but everything to do with prayer for example.
So now we return to the initial question: what constitutes a miracle? If, as you say, a natural explanation can be given for a miracle, what is it that distinguishes a miracle from any other phenomenon for which a natural explanation may be found?
Regarding the healing example: If it can be established that a healing had nothing to do with medical treatment, this simply means that we have a natural phenomenon (the physical healing) for which no natural explanation can currently be provided. As believer one can legitimately exclaim "God did it!" for one is not then making a scientific claim. But as scientist, can one legitimately claim "God did it?" If the answer is "yes," then there seems to me to be no reason why the "God did it" explanation could not be provided in every instance in which a natural phenomenon for which no natural explanation currently exists is encountered. And what, then, would be the point of doing science?
First of all my apologies for coming across ‘condescending’
You asked "But what, then, is a miracle?"
Well I guess as a believer I would define miracle to infer divine intervention in a time of need. There would be many definitions among people of course but the more conditions you place on the definition, the more you limit what a miracle is.
Personally I don’t mind whether miracles and science are compatible or not, but its a good thing that science attempts to truth them, especially where sick people are being preyed upon for their money by so called ‘faith healers’.
I don’t mean to present as contentious or condescending, I merely get frustrated, both in the church and outside of the church, where I feel a line of argument is more coercive than intelligent. And people buy into it…they don’t think. Or alternatively where that line of argument is the best yet articulation of something one already believes, it serves to reinforce…OK so that’s my opinion not yours. There’s no problem with supporting one’s claims with a vigorous and logical debate. I am merely pointing out that his debate is only valid if his definition is accepted by the listener, and I find the defection both restrictive and therefore too easy then to defend. The outcome is already pretty much decided from that point. Is that how we should arrive at truth? The definition is vitally important as it becomes the terms of reference.
Personally I don’t care for ‘having to be right’ i.e.; whether I influence another to believe me…it’s not about winning. I far more enjoy exploring new/old questions in life, getting new perspectives to challenge my own dogmas, but I do turn off the moment I see a line of argument channelling the listener toward a pre-determined outcome. I think I have had to ‘weather’ too many people over the years with restrictive approaches that are really designed to bring my thoughts into line with theirs…and nthat has always been manipulation, whether it dawned on them or not. They rail-road you into an argument you simply don’t won’t to have chanting, “But if A is true then B must follow”. This is characteristic of the tension between the Baby Boomers and Gen X during times of perceptual conflict ….the Boomers ‘know’ they are always right so their arguments seek to establish cognitive dissonance as a form of weapon …. yet they are met with the response ‘whatever!’ Now this isn’t condescending either, it is the observation by generational theorists I read….that’s all.
We believe things by virtue of our worldview and support that with our ‘tools of truth’. The better you know a person, the more likely you are in predicting their response or opinion (their ‘truth’) on a matter yet this has little to do with a reasoned truth. Certainly this happens where we are drawn toward that which we already believe.
You said “At what point exactly do we become "non-thinking sheep?"
When we fail to question.
You said “I'm sorry, but where's the "manipulation" here?"
I’m not suggesting the author is setting out to be fraudulent, the choice of wording is empirical not emotional. To manipulate a reasoned case toward your intended conclusion is no different to choosing a statistical package which best interprets one’s scientific results to support one’s initial null hypothesis. And the choice of definition effectively and cleverly gave his argument its greatest substance.
You said "What is it that distinguishes a miracle from any other phenomenon for which a natural explanation may be found?"
Who knows? But again the idea of a miracle is not that it draws attention to itself, rather is a conduit of undeserved Grace.
RYou said "Regarding the healing example: If it can be established that a healing had nothing to do with medical treatment, this simply means that we have a natural phenomenon (the physical healing) for which no natural explanation can currently be provided. "
Yep. One of which is a miracle. And to that I would offer if I had the immediate need of a miracle, I would probably stumble to believe it might happen, but then if it did , coincidence would simply not ‘cut it’ as an explanation. Sure, whose to say either way…but that then becomes a choice.
You said " But as scientist, can one legitimately claim "God did it?" If the answer is "yes," then there seems to me to be no reason why the "God did it" explanation could not be provided in every instance in which a natural phenomenon for which no natural explanation currently exists is encountered. And what, then, would be the point of doing science?"
Could you re-phrase?
Fair enough . . . but what, then, is a miracle?
Something we cannot explain. Now all things that once fell into that category, but now can be explained have been explained by additional information or subsequently acquired knowledge. No miracles in that class of events.
It is truly appalling that some people choose to adopt less intellectually rigorous thought processes. This is a repudiation of rationality - a deliberate return to the dark ages. It is a preference for the comforts of mere submission to some other power, a rejection of the responsibility for making the best and most logical decision you can in any given circumstance. It is a denial of your humanity.
Hmmm Splatterbottom....a submission to some other power. But for those who claim to have connected with that 'power'what then...should we deny the deity? You say we are denying our humanity...surely not if the spirit of the deity bears testament with the individual human spirit. If that is true, the human spirit is not denied but fulfilled.
And now its Friday night and I have a DVD to watch..."The Interpreter" ...hope its good!
No, garth, in such cases you should conclude that you are deluded.
We have the ability for rational thought, and no deity worth their salt, having bestowed it upon us, would require that we override it.
Unfortunately that movie demonstrates yet again that Nicole Kidman is a crap actress.
We have the ability for rational thought, and no deity worth their salt, having bestowed it upon us, would require that we override it.
Well, I could agree with the statement, if I beleived in deities. But I'm being pedantic.
There are Christians that don't take a literal interpretation, recognise that meanings constructed from the Bible are constructed by people, recognise that humans are fallable, that nobody has access to the mind of God, that the church is fallable and that subsequent known meanings of the Bible are hence fallable. Not because of the fallability of God or the Bible but of the human condition.
It follows for these people that one can and should be critical, but should also be meek and admit one's own failings (and be repentant when one inevitably "sins" against another where one may not be aware of the sin.)
That being said, I'm still an atheist, but I can't attirbute the perspective of the literalist Christian to all of Christendom or to the Christian's God.
Yes Bruce...Big T Truth, which makes the comment quite simple.
Cheers Garth,
It would seem we have something we agree on. Although I personally don't take a stance on whether ontological reality actually exists or not. I'm not into metaphysics ;) But you get the point.
Enjoy your DVD (and weekend)
Bruce: There are Christians that don't take a literal interpretation, recognise that meanings constructed from the Bible are constructed by people, recognise that humans are fallable, that nobody has access to the mind of God, that the church is fallable and that subsequent known meanings of the Bible are hence fallable. Not because of the fallability of God or the Bible but of the human condition.
That is about how I see it, Bruce.
SB
You said " But as scientist, can one legitimately claim "God did it?" If the answer is "yes," then there seems to me to be no reason why the "God did it" explanation could not be provided in every instance in which a natural phenomenon for which no natural explanation currently exists is encountered. And what, then, would be the point of doing science?"
Could you re-phrase?
Hmmm. I thought I had phrased that adequately. OK.
You mentioned, as an example of a miracle, a "healing that had nothing to do with medical treatment."
And I said: "Regarding the healing example: If it can be established that a healing had nothing to do with medical treatment, this simply means that we have a natural phenomenon (the physical healing) for which no natural explanation can currently be provided. As believer (that is, from a strictly theological point of view) one can legitimately exclaim "God did it!""
The question is: is "God did it" (i.e. divine intervention) ever acceptable as a scientific explanation? In other words, if the current level of scientific knowledge is not capable of providing a natural explanation for a given natural phenomenon--such as the physical healing in your example--must science absolutely rule out the possibility that a natural explanation will ever be found, and must it then accept "God did it" (i.e. the supernatural explanation) as the default explanation?
Now if, in the case of the healing example to which you have referred, we simply accept "God did it" as the default explanation, there does not seem to me to be any reason why this rule of thumb should not apply to every natural phenomenon for which no natural explanation currently can be given. And then there would be no point in doing science at all. In short, "God did it" runs counter to science's "mission statement" (if you want to put it that way)--"Seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena"--and therefore should not ever be regarded acceptable as a scientific explanation of hitherto unexplained phenomena. It is, indeed, a non-explanation.
I don't know if I'm being any clearer here. And I want to emphasise that I'm not really having a go at religion or at the concept of miracles per se. I'm just trying to establish where the demarcation between science and religion lies. When you say that it's a good thing when science attempts to "truth" miracle-claims, in order to weed out the dodgy claims, you seem to imply that there are certain miracle claims that science won't be able to weed out, and which must therefore be accepted--by default-- as bona fide miracles. And I must concur with SB that if science were ever to adopt this position, it would constitute a retrograde step--a step into the Dark Ages indeed!
Well I guess as a believer I would define miracle to infer divine intervention in a time of need. There would be many definitions among people of course but the more conditions you place on the definition, the more you limit what a miracle is.
As I understand you, you seem to have two problems with Drange's argument:
(i) The definition he gives for miracle: "An event which violates at least one law of nature."
(ii) His (in your view) circular reasoning. By which I mean--his conclusion (the miraculous is incompatible with science) is presupposed by the way he is defining the term "miracle."
Have I understood you correctly?
If so, I will make this observation: even if Drange had replaced his definition of "miracle" (a stipulative definition, remember) with yours, he would reach the same conclusion. Whether one defines a miracle as "divine intervention," or as "an event that violates at least one law of nature," one still presupposes an incompatibility between science and the miraculous.
Hey there Arthur....The you understood me correctly...the defintion pre-supposes the conclusion ...whether my particular definition supports his argument or not the structural arrangements are what I find limiting. There will other defitions that will send the argument down another path. But being moreover postmodernist I guess I see many paths and yourself being a modernist you see one. Thats not to say one is right or wrong, but simply diversity of persective that separates us on this one. Yours is a cerebral exercise in hypotheticals supported by logical argument. I'm more interested in what you 'reckon'. Forget the confining walls of logic...its a Dr Spock approach that just doesn't cut it with me. And you should be OK with that.
Stick with perspectives rather than 'proofs' and we have a discussion.
No problem Arthur with your last point and yes it made sense to me that time..either I'm thick, it was a bit late or the written word has its limits....anyhow I totally agree that where science can't explain something, that the default position of 'miracle' is not the only possible explanation ...that would be naive, yet the opposite raises issues too. In this case , just extending the logic, a miracle can never be trusted as such as the scientist can always claim that given time and learning that the claimed miracle may well be explainable by other causes. So the miracle becomes a mute point. I then find all this playing with words a bit futile. There can be other indicators that might support the notion of a miracle for an individual too other than cold logic.
I'm not a big fan of the 'holy water' type miracles, and bleeding statues. Can't see God doing that sort of thing...cdertainly didbn't biblically and they would serve no purpose other than provide a trick.
But I have been wondering through all this when does a miracle become a miracle in the believers eyes. A healing is easily called a miracle, but what about an unexpected cash inflow in a time of need? Is that a bit dramatic to call a miracle? I would have thought so, I'd just call it being looked after.
Post a Comment