I read your response to me in your other piece, and I want to respond to you here for that one and for your new one.

You said, “My claim is that you cannot call the second unscientific if the scientist is basing his hypothesis of a creator on physical evidence. You can't just say, “Only naturalist explanations are acceptable hypotheses.” Do you agree that limiting the answers has the potential of distorting the direction in which the evidence is truly pointing? That's not good for science.”

In answer to your question, no, I do not agree that limiting the answers makes bad science. Consider for example that you are a scientist trying to discover the reasons a certain tree has died, or the workings of a DNA strand to use your own example. If every possible answer is on the table, including the supernatural, then you will never find the right answer. What kind of scientist looks at a problem and says, “Maybe God caused it?”

Science is about observation of the natural world. Religion is deals with the supernatural. Supernatural theories do not belong in science because, while they may have some merit, they are unprovable. So it is actually good for science to limit it's theories to the natural. As I noted already, science simply cannot speak authoritatively about matters of faith.

Furthermore, not to belabour the point but in the interest of answering you fully, you also wrote, “The example I give in the previous post I cited is that of a scientist finding a man-made artifact in the jungle. There are certain observable facts about the artifact that point to a personal agent as a creator. It is not, therefore, unscientific to propose that an agent created the artifact. It is actually quite reasonable. In the same way, the complex, specific information in DNA points to a creator. There's nothing in the physical properties of the DNA that would cause it to come together in the way that it does. Meaningful information comes from a personal agent. How then, is it unscientific to propose that a personal agent is responsible?

It is unscientific only because we cannot empirically prove that God caused it. Here I am referring to a diseased tree, or a DNA strand as examples. Granted, God might have caused it, but science cannot make that claim because it cannot support the existence of God at all. The immediate theories should be termites, or forest fires, or something of that nature. Religious people should cut men of science some slack because they aren't theologians.

Permit me to drive the point home. Science is not concerned with questions such as which religion holds truth. That's a debate for logicians, not exploratory researchers. A scientist can never answer that question, so why pin that expectation on him? While I do not agree with the person you quoted that faith is only a comforter, I must insist he was correct in asserting that the two are mutually exclusive. But I want to be clear. I am not saying that science deals with fact, and faith deals only with emotion. What I am saying is that science deals only with the material.

Lastly, you wrote, “If a spiritual reality exists (and I could offer plenty of evidence for that), wouldn't it follow that a certain spiritual reality exists and not many different conflicting ones all at once?”

I would like to see your “evidence” of a spiritual reality. That is a direct challenge. I will bet it is neither empirical or repeatable.

Cheers,
Han

Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Roger at 12:42PM (PST) on Mar 31, 2005
Read Doug TenNapel's blog today for a great analysis of whether Intelligent Design is science. http://www.tennapel.com

Re: Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Han Shot First at 02:02PM (PST) on Mar 31, 2005
Hi,

I'm not arguing against intelligent design or for evolution. Very briefly, I'm asserting that science does not, and cannot, answer questions of faith or “ultimate truth.” The existence of God is a matter of faith.

I think that's pretty clear. Don't you?

Cheers,
Han

Re: Re: Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Amy at 02:38PM (PST) on Mar 31, 2005
But naturalist scientists often make claims to answer questions of ultimate truth by declaring that nothing exists outside of the natural world. This is my whole point. They're making philosophical claims without realizing it, and then they do not permit other scientists to make conflicting philosophical claims–even if those claims are also based on science.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Han Shot First at 03:02PM (PST) on Mar 31, 2005
I fail to see how anyone could be preventing anyone else from making any kind of claims, scientific or otherwise. Also I think you are still confusing the two fields. If scientists are sitting around arguing about religious issues they are not doing their jobs. Or do you think that's what scientists should do?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Amy at 03:22PM (PST) on Mar 31, 2005
I'm saying that's what they're doing whether I want them to or not. They are making a naturalist claim about the ultimate nature of the universe and then try to prevent any other scientific hypothesis (hypotheses based on evidence, not just dogmatically stated–i.e., the ID movement) from being taught anywhere by saying their conclusion isn't scientific even if their evidence is.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Amy at 03:24PM (PST) on Mar 31, 2005
Incidentally, I don't mean “taught dogmatically”–I only mean offered as a possible alternative so that the merits of the arguments can be discussed openly in the schools.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Han Shot First at 04:52PM (PST) on Mar 31, 2005
Isn't is possible that rather than trying to prevent other scientific views, they have come to the appropriate conclusion that it is best to look primarily for natural explanations to natural problems?

Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Roger at 02:17PM (PST) on Mar 31, 2005
I didn't mean for my link to be a response to your comments, but a reference to a similar discussion. But I'm interested now, what do you mean by “a matter of faith”?

Re: Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Han Shot First at 02:27PM (PST) on Mar 31, 2005
How is that unclear?

Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Amy at 02:33PM (PST) on Mar 31, 2005
Han, again, thanks for the interaction!

You said, “If every possible answer is on the table, including the supernatural, then you will never find the right answer.”

Why is that necessarily the case? If you're reasoning to the best explanation of the facts and the best explanation of the facts is an intelligent being, why is it more scientific to propose something less probable (hypothetically)? Again, I appeal to my illustration of the artifact in the jungle. It shows certain signs of being created by a personal agent–there is some sort of writing (information) on the artifact that is clearly not random or a simple pattern, but is complex and specific. We know from everything we know from science that forces of nature do not cause such things to appear. It would then be silly for you to continue to look for something like termites to explain the existence of the artifact just because you've excluded the possibility that it was created by an intelligent being (even if you can never prove a being had been there). *This* is the way to never find the right answer. In a nutshell, there are certain things in observable reality that point to personal agents, and if we ignore these things by limiting our options to unthinking forces of nature, we're just being philosophically biased.

This doesn't mean that scientists should stop trying to understand natural laws. But here's a key point: there is a big difference between 1) making ad hoc statements like “Well, God must have done it” about things you don't understand and 2) recognizing that the signs of an intelligent designer (in the things you *do* understand) point to a designer as the best explanation. The first is completely ad hoc–a catch-all, giving up, desperate answer; but the second is a reasonable inference based on the evidence. Can you prove the existence of a designer beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, but neither can you prove that evolution occurred beyond the shadow of a doubt. All you can do is examine the evidence and make a reasonable inference to the best explanation. The theory of the evolution of life from non-life is proposed as the best explanation to fit the facts at hand, but it is neither empirical nor repeatable (that is, there is no observable evidence that life arose from non-life on its own). I argue that the best explanation for the existence of something is not “nothing.” Instead, something existed when there was no natural world that caused the natural world to come into existence. This is not an ad hoc hypothesis, but based on scientific reasoning (i.e., we disproved spontaneous generation centuries ago). Science should be reasoning to the best explanation based on the observable evidence, and if there are competing theories *based on the observable evidence,* all theories should be able to compete and not automatically disallowed. Let's discuss the evidence and the reasoning and not automatically dismiss certain options. This is all I'm arguing for.

As for the existence of non-physical entities, you could start with the non-physical part of *you.* There is empirical evidence for dualism (that is, we are not just our bodies, but something more). There have been studies on near-death experiences where people died, were separated from their bodies and reported in detail events taking place in far removed places. This is something that is easily tested. (I think Moreland and Habermas talk about this in _Beyond Death_.) Other non-physical entities existing outside of physical matter that we have discovered include logic, moral law, and mathematics. Additionally, since Christianity's claims are based on events in history, it's possible to study historical evidence to determine (as much as it's possible to determine anything in history) whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. If he was separated from his body and returned, that is more evidence of a spiritual aspect to reality. (I've read a book by Jewish professor Pinchas Lapides on Jesus' resurrection where even he agrees that the evidence is so overwhelming for the resurrection that it must have happened–though he offers a different interpretation.)

Beyond these things, science makes theories about non-provable, non-observable entities all the time (e.g., dark matter).

Reality includes physical and spiritual aspects, so it's no surprise that truth in one area points to truth in another. In fact, the reason that modern science developed in the western world at all is because our culture understood that God created the universe, and therefore, there *were* natural laws and order that could be studied. Other cultures that did not believe this truth were never led to the truths of science.

Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Han Shot First at 03:54PM (PST) on Mar 31, 2005
Hello again Amy,

What you wrote is all very interesting, but my point concerning the limits of science and the division between the two fields still stands. I think you said it best yourself when you admitted, “Can you prove the existence of a designer beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, but neither can you prove that evolution occurred beyond the shadow of a doubt.”

If a researcher cannnot prove the existence of God, then he has no place in the field of science coming to the conclusion that a given problem is solved by crediting the datum to the work of a higher power.

Think about it. Is the best you can come up with out of body experiences? Who regards those as scientific evidence? And how are such things “easy tested,” as you put it? If indeed you have a non-physical aspect to your body, where is it? Can you prove it exists? Also, regarding Christianity specifically, can you prove any of those supernatural stories actually occured? Are you absolutely sure, empirically speaking, that “reality includes physical and spiritual aspects?”

Cheers,
Han

Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Amy at 11:08PM (PST) on Mar 31, 2005
Han,

If you can't prove beyond all doubt that life came from non-life (and you can't, as I said), or empirically test dark matter, should scientists therefore not discuss these things? I just don't think your logic follows. At least in the case of God, there are other philosophical and moral arguments to support His existence as well; so like I said, it's not an ad-hoc hypothesis. There's other supporting evidence in the totality of reality to make this probable.

Beyond that, I think you're missing part of my point. ID people are not just looking to solve a problem by crediting something to God. They are actually saying the evidence *points* to the existence of God–the evidence best fits the explanation of an intelligent being. There is a difference between those two things.

The near-death experiences are verifiable (which is why I included them as one example of many). The conversations and situations described by the patients are easily verifiable, and this has been studied. I think you're confusing categories when you ask “where” something non-physical is. That's the point. It's not physical, you can't see it. (You can't see dark matter or empirically test it either, but you can infer its existence from the effects it causes.)

You can prove the resurrection of Jesus as much as you can prove any other event in history, and more than most.

Am I certain there's a spiritual aspect to reality? Yes, for reasons I've stated, and more.

Thanks for the conversation!

Re: Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Han Shot First at 08:50AM (PST) on Apr 1, 2005
Hi Amy,

I hope this doesn't sound terrible and I apologize if my questioning bothers you, but what I'm wondering is how a religious person can be so sure there is a spiritual reality. Nobody can see it, touch it, smell it, feel it, or taste it.

Han

Re: Re: Confusion About Science and Religion – Part Two
by Amy at 08:48PM (PST) on Apr 1, 2005
Your questioning doesn't bother me at all! We love to have people who disagree come here and ask questions. The discussions wouldn't be nearly so interesting without this kind of interaction–thanks!

Like I mentioned before, there are other things that exist that you can't see, touch, smell, or taste– love, friendship, thoughts, memories, mathematics, etc. None of these things exist as a physical entity. I'll just continue to use the example of dark matter in the universe. Scientists can't see it in itself, but they know it's there because they see evidence of it. In the same way, God has acted in history and continues to act. We can see those things even if we can't see Him. Personally, I've seen some amazing answers to prayer and experienced God's presence in my life. In a more objective sense, you can see fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. A chapter of Daniel (written at the very *latest* in 200BC) predicts the year of Jesus' crucifixion. Isaiah 53 describes Jesus' dying to take our punishment on himself.

There's much, much more about this. I suggest you read _Mere Christianity_ by C.S. Lewis for more info. One last thing on this: throughout history, all groups of people have instinctively known that a spiritual reality exists, and they have realized their need to connect with God. Atheists are by far the minority. C.S. Lewis makes the interesting point that for every need and desire we have as humans, something exists to fill it. We feel hunger–food exists to fill it. We feel thirsty–water exists to fulfill that need. We (the group of humans as a whole throughout time) desire to connect with God. Now here is a curious thing! Why would evolution develop in us a desire for something that doesn't exist–a useless desire that can't be quenched? It's something to consider.