Science and physical laws (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 14:50 (5447 days ago) @ dhw

Nicholas, criticizing Dawkins, writes: "Science makes no claims about that which it cannot study, and therefore is not atheistic, but it is inherently agnostic in nature." Whitecraw responds that science "proceeds on the methodological assumption that there is no agency external to the order of nature that intervenes in that order to affect the course of events, and is to this extent atheistic." Strictly speaking, can we say that science makes claims of any sort, or even proceeds? It is scientists who make claims and who proceed. In relation to religion, I suspect that some scientists (following definition 1) set out to discover how Nature works (agnostic), others how God makes ... or made ... Nature work (theist), and others how Nature makes itself work (atheist). They all study the same thing, should all use the same objective methods, and should eventually end up with the same sets of facts. The difference will be in the conclusions (if any) that they draw from those facts. - I've gone way back in this discussion to point out an interesting book, just published,"The Universe: Order Without Design" that discusses the latest theories in cosmology and declares that our universe is not 'designed'. Please note in the second paragraph of this book review the sentence that raises the question, "Where did the false vacuum come from?" In arguing with George about Vic Stenger's excuse for this universe, that has been my point all along. Why is there something instead of nothing? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081.700-review-the-universe-order-without-de...