The Second Eclectic

Technology changes how we relate to God and each other

Thoughts and Reasons, Part Three

Mr. Cawelti,

Thanks for the reply. I am always up for understanding a new perspective.

So, if our disagreements fall on the matter of faith, then defining the term might do us some good. From your response, I gather that scientists bristle against anything that cannot be proven (they try very hard to avoid believing in anything that cannot be proven), that is, anything that requires "faith." So, we might think of faith as "anything that cannot be scientifically proven." Is that a fair assessment?

Yet, my first thought still stands: the presumption that Nature is all that exists cannot be proven anymore than the presumption that a supernature exists beyond nature. If neither can be proven nor disproven by the scientific method, then both are equal in standing on scientific grounds--neither being preferable, both actually being discouraged based on the scientists' "unprovable" grounds.

So then, why do scientists, who avoid anything that cannot be proven, prefer to have faith that only Nature exists? Moreover, why do they discourage a faith that a supernature exists? These two unprovable grounds should be on equal footing in the lab, no?

Your mention of "mostly proven, given probabilities" reminds me again of Lewis' book. He has a chapter on probabilities in there. I'm not one to speak to that end. If you do wish to consider the Nature-Supernature debate from a more philosophical perspective, his is a good book. I think he has written it in part as a critique to Hume's essay on Miracles.

Even while we disagree, I appreciate the opportunity to sharpen my thinking.