tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post8672161849880476795..comments2023-11-03T11:48:36.234+00:00Comments on Chris Hamer-Hodges: Science and the supernaturalChris Hamer-Hodgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-65725179958081175672008-09-22T07:22:00.000+01:002008-09-22T07:22:00.000+01:00Here we're wandering into uncertain territory. I t...Here we're wandering into uncertain territory. I think the ability to make a decision (not part of a cause and event chain) is a natural one, you're kind of implying that its supernatural.<BR/><BR/>The average atheist equates the word "supernatural" with the word "impossible". You cannot appeal to any supernatural cause in a debate with this kind of atheist, because they'll simply hear you saying "this impossible thing happened". On the other hand, many believers will equate the word "supernatural" with "anything God does" (which probably includes the assumption that this is <I>all</I> beyond the reach of science), thus they limit science. <BR/><BR/>There is little point in using a word which is used in different ways by the different sides in the conversation - it just confuses things.Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-26417400210949752102008-09-20T22:44:00.000+01:002008-09-20T22:44:00.000+01:00Ricky,Re. Supernatural:I can understand why the wo...Ricky,<BR/><BR/>Re. Supernatural:<BR/>I can understand why the word "supernatural" can be a cause for concern. It is a pretty big umbrella that includes a lot of superstition and nonsense. But I use the word in its purest sense: super-natural - beyond what is explainable by natural causes. And in this sense I believe it is the right word.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe God is limited to acting suernaturally - as creator he is behind everything that is natural too. <BR/><BR/>Re. Probability:<BR/>I think you'll find that statistics and probability feature pretty heavily in physics - they certainly did when I studied them: Thermodynamics, Quantum mechanics, and Chaos theory to name three fields that I studied specifically that are almost entirely based on probabilities.<BR/><BR/>[As an aside, I think many people misunderstand probability. The number of people who play the lottery is proof of that! Some confuse it with superstition and luck; some see it only as uncertainty - you can't really know anything for sure.<BR/><BR/>But a probability is an empirical measurement with just as much value as any other. Seeing it only in terms of uncertainty is like saying the glass is half empty. Take a radioactive decay - you only know the probability that any one atom will decay in a give period of time - but this probability gives you BOTH uncertainty AND certainty - this is how on an individual scale a single radioactive decay can be the purest form of random data - but on a macroscopic scale atomic clocks governed by the rate of radioactive decay are the most accurate in the world. Bookies understand probability - the certainty behind uncertainty - that's why they make money.]<BR/><BR/>Re. Quantum Mechanics:<BR/>Whilst quantum theory allows subatomic particles of matter to spring in and out of existence for very short periods of time - it is wrong to assume this means quantum mechanics breaks down the chains of cause and effect. QM is hard for us to get our heads round, (it certainly was for me!) because we are so used to thinking of particles as classical newtonian objects (...and because the maths is so darn hard!)- but if you replace the dominoes with probability wave functions the same principle/analogy still holds even at a quantum level.<BR/><BR/>Re. Free will:<BR/>I think that's an excellent example! You say it's not supernatural... but if a human being is (as you and I both believe) more than just the sum of its parts how can it be otherwise? From a purely atheistic view any free will we may think we have is just an illusion caused by our biochemistry and neural synapses. Could it be that some supernatural events are so normal that we just don't recognise them as such?Chris Hamer-Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15680998868164693275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9405828.post-89006403960683925922008-09-20T08:14:00.000+01:002008-09-20T08:14:00.000+01:00I reject the word 'supernatural'. It is not helpfu...I reject the word 'supernatural'. It is not helpful in the science vs religion debate. Both sides can use it to their advantage.<BR/><BR/>What is 'natural' and what is 'supernatural'? If you define natural (as I do) as 'everything that is real' (which includes the physical and the non-physical) then there simply is no supernatural.<BR/><BR/>Why do we (Christians) like to think that God is anything other than natural? (I suppose if you define 'natural' in terms of things that have been 'created' then He must be above that, but that builds an assumption into your definition and skews your argument.)<BR/><BR/>I'm a believer in free will. If there are two jelly babies lying on a table (a red one and a black one), I believe I have freedom to choose one over the other. I don't simply pick the black one as the end result of a sequence of causes and effects. So somewhere there is a non-physical cause (my decision) which brings about a physical action (which jelly baby I eat). This is not supernatural.<BR/><BR/>Its the same (on a grander scale) with God. His non-physical decision ('let there be light') resulted in physical action ([insert your view of the origin of all things here]).<BR/><BR/>When people (especially in this debate) talk about 'science' being able to explain things, they generally mean the big three: physics, chemistry and biology. But probability and statistics are a science too. In probability event A <I>might</I> cause event B, or it might cause event C. Cause and effect isn't as clear cut as some would have you believe. At the quantum level, cause and effect break down anyway.<BR/><BR/>I believe that there also is a scientific explanation for every process (cause and effect chain) that happens, even if we cannot see the explanation from our current level of understanding. But that does not mean that the explanation cannot include a decision at some point.Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.com