User talk:Filll/scienceandsupernatural

After reading this and pondering it a bit, I realize that kenosis is right. There are several different ways in which science and scientists can interact with the supernatural:


 * 1) to investigate something with a supernatural cause with conventional scientific tools and then reach a conclusion
 * 2) to not find an answer to a scientific puzzle, and ascribe its explanation to supernatural means
 * 3) to assume a priori that a given supernatural cause is correct, and to refuse to accept any other explanation no matter what the evidence
 * 4) for scientists to have some respect and awe about nature and a feeling that there might be some driving natural principle or principles
 * 5) for scientists to subscribe to some subset of religious supernatural beliefs, but not in the area of their work
 * 6) for scientists to use their beliefs in the supernatural to influence their scientific work.

What is objectionable in science are interactions 2, 3 and 6. What is not objectionable is interaction 4. What can be objectionable if they use their position of authority to make pronouncements about other fields of science is interaction 5. Interaction 1 can be frowned upon by science as being a waste of resources, but if the work is conducted with proper scientific skepticism and honesty and the conclusions are drawn in a conventional scientific fashion, interaction 1 is still in the scientific realm.--Filll 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This highlights why it is valuable to have these discussions, to sharpen our arguments and shed light on the situation. Creationists have been known to claim that case 1 or case 4 make cases 2, 3 and 6 permissible. If a scientist satisfies case 5, creationists will sometimes claim this justifies cases 2, 3 and 6.