Science and God - again

[tree_and_leaf]

Not a bioethics link this time, but the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute talks about his faith (he's got a book coming out). Good - nice to see an acknowledgment that science and faith are not enemies, necessarily. Though heaven alone knows what 'theistic evolution' is supposed to mean.

Am nonetheless wryly amused that the link I followed from the Times front page said "I've found God, says man who cracked." Actually this is a cutoff of the full headline, which read "... man who cracked the human genome", but it's still funny.

Comments

[bekijane.livejournal.com]

'theistic evolution' = 'God created it perfect. Sin/man/Satan caused it to evolve.' Not a theory I subscribe to, but that's the nutshell.

[emily-shore.livejournal.com]

Is it? That's not at all how I understand the term.

[emily-shore.livejournal.com]

It is certainly good to see efforts to bring science and religion towards a closer understanding. I do have my doubts, however, about the extent to which a practicing scientist can accept the possibility of miracles without involving themself in great difficulties. It reminds me of that classic cartoon (http://www.webamused.com/blogosophy/archives/002064.html).

[tree_and_leaf]

I'm pretty sure that's not what he's arguing for, though. (My confusion with the term is more caused by the fact that it reminds me of Creative Evolution, though again, I'm sure he's not a Bergsonite (-onian?). My impression from the article was that he was arguing that evolution is the process by which God's creation works. Possibly he was just trying not to say 'intelligent design', though that's understandable.

[tree_and_leaf]

The cartoon's funny, although isn't it more directed at 'God-of-the-gaps' than a belief in miracles per se?

[emily-shore.livejournal.com]

Well, yes and no. I can't really say what the artist intended, besides the fact that it's primarily intended as a joke. You're probably right about the intended meaning.

For me, though, it does make me reflect further about what effect the existence of miracles would have on scientific inquiry and on the scientific worldview. Obviously, if miracles to occur, then they have to be integrated into the scientific worldview somehow.

So I find myself asking questions like this: how would science prove that a miracle is indeed miraculous, rather than an event that can be explained by the operation of not-yet-understood natural laws? How can science deal with the idea that the operation of natural laws can be suspended for some unspecified amount of time? How does the miracle interact with the world around it? Can miracles be studied by science even if they are, by definition, irreproducible? What consequences do miracles have for the domain of knowledge and existence that science has claimed to be able to understand?

When I hear practicing scientists talking about miracles, I wonder about all of these things, and I wonder how they would deal with a miracle that took place in their own test tubes.

[tree_and_leaf]

So I find myself asking questions like this: how would science prove that a miracle is indeed miraculous, rather than an event that can be explained by the operation of not-yet-understood natural laws? How can science deal with the idea that the operation of natural laws can be suspended for some unspecified amount of time? How does the miracle interact with the world around it? Can miracles be studied by science even if they are, by definition, irreproducible? What consequences do miracles have for the domain of knowledge and existence that science has claimed to be able to understand?

When I hear practicing scientists talking about miracles, I wonder about all of these things, and I wonder how they would deal with a miracle that took place in their own test tubes.

I see what you mean, and I agree that it's difficult to see how science can deal with the miraculous- in fact, I don't think it can. It can't ask the right questions.

But the point about miracles is not that they are weird and inexplicable violations of natural law but that they point beyond themselves to God; I can't see the situation where one would have to deal with a miracle in a test-tube arising. But that doesn't really answer your question.

how would science prove that a miracle is indeed miraculous, rather than an event that can be explained by the operation of not-yet-understood natural laws?

That's surely a logical impossibility? But - from a theological point of view - I think it may not necessarily matter all that much, since the natural laws are for the believer also the work of the creator.

[emily-shore.livejournal.com]

But the point about miracles is not that they are weird and inexplicable violations of natural law but that they point beyond themselves to God...

I agree with that entirely in a theological context. The problem is that if one believes in miracles in a literal rather than metaphorical sense, then they also become relevant as topics of scientific enquiry.

That's surely a logical impossibility?

Sorry, I phrased that really badly. What I meant was: how would science determine whether something was a miracle or not?

...natural laws are for the believer also the work of the creator.

Again, I agree with you here. From the point of view of an agnostic, I think that the only really consistent points of view are that everything is a miracle, or that nothing is. Take your pick. Personally I go back and forth.