Why is a \"designer\" so compelling? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Friday, July 17, 2009, 11:04 (5607 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt has responded to Point 1 of my post of 15 July at 16.37: "One can assess science as only studying the natural world, and theology only studying the supernatural...This view can work perfectly as long as the supernatural isn't invoked as a cause and/or as a phenomenon regularly interfacing with that of the natural. This violates the assumption that we cannot differentiate from the natural and the supernatural. Asserting that the natural world has or is caused by a supernatural phenomenon ultimately places on the person holding the position the burden for being able to say exactly when the supernatural ends and where the natural begins. Since the scientific method excludes this possibility there remains no tool save for raw speculation, because the process at arriving at a final truth invariably recreates the scientific method and thus must adopt its assumptions." - This is an interesting and complex argument, which centres on the distinction between the natural and the supernatural, but I can't figure out what you mean by "this violates the assumption that we cannot differentiate from the natural and the supernatural". I shall have to respond without that sentence, so I may have missed something vital in your reasoning. - As I see it, no-one knows where the so-called natural ends and the so-called supernatural begins, simply because we have scarcely begun to unravel the mysteries of Nature. There have, for instance, been long discussions on this forum about the "paranormal", and as I'm not willing to dismiss all such experiences as fraud, self-delusion etc. ... particularly when otherwise unknowable information has been obtained ... I keep an open mind. It may be that there are "natural" forms of communication and even forms of being that we know nothing about. The fascinating article David recommended in his post of 14 July at 02.01 under "Quantum Science" led him to ask: "Is there another level of reality out there?" Quantum Science is not a study of the supernatural. - I therefore see no reason for the constraints you are imposing. The theist and the atheist scientist can continue to investigate Nature, and so long as their religious or irreligious beliefs don't impinge on that investigation, their findings should coincide. I have no doubt that they will continue to come upon (and eventually unravel) more and more mysteries, and the borders between what we now call natural and supernatural may well change accordingly. Invoking a "supernatural" creator, and even believing that it interfaces with the "natural" world, again won't change the findings, since whatever is discovered can be attributed to Nature or to God. I also see no reason why a believer should be obliged to say where the supernatural ends and the natural begins, let alone "exactly" where. This brings us to the nub of the matter. Unless there is a God who manifests himself and announces, "OK, guys, this is how I did it!" we shall never know the prime cause or what you call the "final truth", i.e. we shall never be able to say for certain that the universe was an accident, or that it was the product of design. If we can't know it, scientists and non-scientists, and theists and atheists alike have no tool except what you call "raw speculation" with which to search for that final truth. - If you accept this argument, there is no paradox and there is no quagmire. Science will go on investigating as far as it possibly can, and all of us can go on speculating about the "final truth". This brings us back to your initial statement ... that science studies the natural world and theology studies the supernatural. I would prefer to say that theology studies various theories concerning the unknowable prime cause. Those theories include a god that is immanent, a god that is transcendent, a god that is both, multiple gods, indifferent gods etc. I'd also include no gods, even though that goes against the etymology! In my view, however, it's essential that none of these theories should be studied without due respect for the findings of science. Science must ignore theology, but theology should not ignore science.