"There are plenty of possible explanations for what we find in nature. And just because we haven't figured things out doesn't mean supernatural forces are responsible."
I'm sure I don't need to point out on HN that this is a tautology. If we haven't figured something out, it doesn't imply anything at all.
We may only infer (in scientific terms) that a supernatural explanation is necessary when it can be shown that a natural explanation is impossible (by the law of the excluded middle).
I knew an atheist (dead now) who believed that a friend of his had levitated in full view of approximately 50 people at his father's funeral (the father of the guy who levitated). He believed that it was not a trick pulled by either his friend or any of the attendees at the funeral but that science would eventually explain this in a perfectly naturalistic way.
I also know a Christian who says he saw an amputee grow a new leg instantaneously when some friends of his prayed for the guy. He does not believe this was a trick pulled by either the friends of his or the amputee. He believes it was a supernatural miracle.
I do not believe either story on their say so. Either could in theory be lying to me. And I have no direct evidence to support their stories.
However, if I had had the experience of the atheist, then absent any evidence of a trick or circumstances which might suggest an alternative explanation, I would have supposed a supernatural explanation. And similarly if I had the experience of the Christian. However, I guess that the atheist would suppose a naturalistic explanation in both cases (I cannot ask him, as he is dead). In either case we have a predilection which is likely to influence our conclusion.
I don't think science enters into the picture in either case. Science is a process by which we discover the laws of nature and apply them. Science does not care what I believe. Its conclusions will be the same regardless of what I believe. Whether or nor science changes your beliefs may depend on how well you understand science, but it may also depend on your beliefs and the experiences you have had.
One should never eschew good science because of a commitment to either a religious or an atheistic perspective. All knowledge is subject to review and revision. What we believe however, is personal. And the two should not interfere.
I'm sure I don't need to point out on HN that this is a tautology. If we haven't figured something out, it doesn't imply anything at all.
We may only infer (in scientific terms) that a supernatural explanation is necessary when it can be shown that a natural explanation is impossible (by the law of the excluded middle).
I knew an atheist (dead now) who believed that a friend of his had levitated in full view of approximately 50 people at his father's funeral (the father of the guy who levitated). He believed that it was not a trick pulled by either his friend or any of the attendees at the funeral but that science would eventually explain this in a perfectly naturalistic way.
I also know a Christian who says he saw an amputee grow a new leg instantaneously when some friends of his prayed for the guy. He does not believe this was a trick pulled by either the friends of his or the amputee. He believes it was a supernatural miracle.
I do not believe either story on their say so. Either could in theory be lying to me. And I have no direct evidence to support their stories.
However, if I had had the experience of the atheist, then absent any evidence of a trick or circumstances which might suggest an alternative explanation, I would have supposed a supernatural explanation. And similarly if I had the experience of the Christian. However, I guess that the atheist would suppose a naturalistic explanation in both cases (I cannot ask him, as he is dead). In either case we have a predilection which is likely to influence our conclusion.
I don't think science enters into the picture in either case. Science is a process by which we discover the laws of nature and apply them. Science does not care what I believe. Its conclusions will be the same regardless of what I believe. Whether or nor science changes your beliefs may depend on how well you understand science, but it may also depend on your beliefs and the experiences you have had.
One should never eschew good science because of a commitment to either a religious or an atheistic perspective. All knowledge is subject to review and revision. What we believe however, is personal. And the two should not interfere.