Archbishop Welby's statement

[Shaker]

In view of the ways in which you and others have dodged the matter of what 'natural' means - is it all-encompassed by science, or is that only part of nature - I'd suggest that you probably live closer to the centre of that city than I do.

I've actually been pretty explicit about what natural means* - I suppose you must have missed that post just as you've mysteriously missed all the others that you won't touch.

* (For example: here - http://goo.gl/K5YV6y; here - http://goo.gl/05v8rk; here - http://goo.gl/81gBlv; and here - http://goo.gl/Tw8XfS - to give just a few examples).

[Hope]

One of the words in the phrase "scientifically natural" is redundant.

In your opinion. 

Of course, those of us to believe that the spiritual world is no less natural, the term 'scientific' has to be included as a distinguishing adjective.

If science can't "encompass" X, how can you be aware that there is such a thing as X in the first place? What methodology are you using in order to be able to claim that there is such a thing as X at all?

Well, the obvious methodology is a spiritual one which doesn't fit with a merely scientific outlook, so that those who don't believe in the former won't understand it anyway - which is why I've regularly stated that the debate is somewhat moot as the different protaganists are starting from very different definitions, positions and understandings. 

Science will never be able to prove that the spiritual element of nature doesn't/can't exist nor will it's proponents ever be in a position to even cast doubt on it.  I realise that you and others have tried hard to do so, but every time one or other of you comes up with another 'appeal to science' you simply point to the fact that you don't understand the other part of the natural world.

[Shaker]

In your opinion.

No, not my opinion, basic English. When you use more words than are necessary to express a concept it's a pleonasm - a redundancy. The now-banned Johnny Canoe/Oh MY World used to do it regularly with "godless atheists", for example.

Of course, those of us to believe that the spiritual world is no less natural

On what basis? Using what methodology?

Well, the obvious methodology is a spiritual one which doesn't fit with a merely scientific outlook, so that those who don't believe in the former won't understand it anyway - which is why I've regularly stated that the debate is somewhat moot as the different protaganists are starting from very different definitions, positions and understandings.

Which is both a dodge and a straw man.

Science will never be able to prove that the spiritual element of nature doesn't/can't exist nor will it's proponents ever be in a position to even cast doubt on it.

Habitual negative proof fallacy aside, this means that the default position is scepticism, not credulity.

I realise that you and others have tried hard to do so, but every time one or other of you comes up with another 'appeal to science' you simply point to the fact that you don't understand the other part of the natural world.

This so-called "other part" which is so often asserted but which you can't even demonstrate or show a methodology by which to evaluate. Stunning work there.

[SusanDoris]

Every now and again I steel myself to read a Hope post! Mostly I read and admire the posts of those with the fortitude and intelligence to respond.

[ippy]

Every now and again I steel myself to read a Hope post! Mostly I read and admire the posts of those with the fortitude and intelligence to respond.

So you don't read my posts then? well thank you very much Susan.

Have a good day S D, ippy   

[floo]

So you don't read my posts then? well thank you very much Susan.

Have a good day S D, ippy   

Behave yourself ippy!

[ippy]

Behave yourself ippy!

Sorry Floo I sometimes get days like this, it all started when I looked into the mirror when I was shaving this morning and I could see my Dad looking back, and I then I thought he was a devilishly good looking bloke.

I have to take ugly pills, quite a few each morning, every day

ippy 

[Enki]

In your opinion. 

Of course, those of us to believe that the spiritual world is no less natural, the term 'scientific' has to be included as a distinguishing adjective.
Well, the obvious methodology is a spiritual one which doesn't fit with a merely scientific outlook, so that those who don't believe in the former won't understand it anyway - which is why I've regularly stated that the debate is somewhat moot as the different protaganists are starting from very different definitions, positions and understandings. 

Science will never be able to prove that the spiritual element of nature doesn't/can't exist nor will it's proponents ever be in a position to even cast doubt on it.  I realise that you and others have tried hard to do so, but every time one or other of you comes up with another 'appeal to science' you simply point to the fact that you don't understand the other part of the natural world.

I assume, of course, that you accept that there is such a thing as the 'natural world.' Your last sentence seems to suggest that you do, indeed, think that this is so.
So, now, let's take your 'spiritual element of nature', which is the view that at least some phenomena are the result of forces emanating from this spiritual element.  Any methodology verifying this would not only have to show that certain phenomena are explained only by spiritual means, but would have to eliminate the possibility of any natural explanations. Further, such a process, to have reasonable integrity, should have a falsifiability factor built in. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any sort of methodology of this sort which can verify this 'spiritual element'.

However, contrary to your view, methodological naturalism could actually go a long way in confirming this by showing that at least one one phenomenon cannot be naturally explicable. In this sense, your 'spiritual element' needs methodological naturalism to demonstrate its viability.

I would have assumed that there is plenty of empirical evidence to support the idea that there is indeed a natural world, of which we are a part. I don't dismiss the idea that a spiritual world also exists, just that I see no evidence for it, until, of course, you are willing to present evidence which is in compliance with the above definition for its methodology.

To state that "you don't understand the other part of the natural world" does not necessarily follow. It could well be a case of simply not having the evidence in making such a claim leads one to dismiss the idea of a 'spiritual element' as not probable, that is until that evidence arrives. You see, it is not necessarily a case of not understanding, but simply not agreeing.

[Hope]

I assume, of course, that you accept that there is such a thing as the 'natural world.' Your last sentence seems to suggest that you do, indeed, think that this is so.
So, now, let's take your 'spiritual element of nature', which is the view that at least some phenomena are the result of forces emanating from this spiritual element.  Any methodology verifying this would not only have to show that certain phenomena are explained only by spiritual means, but would have to eliminate the possibility of any natural explanations. Further, such a process, to have reasonable integrity, should have a falsifiability factor built in. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any sort of methodology of this sort which can verify this 'spiritual element'.

And any methodology verifying this spiritual element would also have to rely on aspects that a purely scientific verification model is unable to deal with.

However, contrary to your view, methodological naturalism could actually go a long way in confirming this by showing that at least one one phenomenon cannot be naturally explicable. In this sense, your 'spiritual element' needs methodological naturalism to demonstrate its viability.

And I've already mentioned one such phenomenon - miraculous (or to use the non-believers term - spontaneous) healing.  Can't remember exactly who it was, but on a previous thread on miraculous/spontaneous healing, one poster pointed out that the human body repirs itself very effectively and normally, often without help.  I've also seen that argument used on other forums I am or have been a member of.  Unfortunately, this kind of healing isn't referred to as 'spontaneous' healing (nor is it referred to as 'miraculous' healing).  Those terms are reserved for situations that medical science has proved unable to resolve.  Again, situations that science is not in a position to explain!

I would have assumed that there is plenty of empirical evidence to support the idea that there is indeed a natural world, of which we are a part. I don't dismiss the idea that a spiritual world also exists, just that I see no evidence for it, until, of course, you are willing to present evidence which is in compliance with the above definition for its methodology.

Whilst you 'see no evidence for it' there are many people who, looking at the same material, have found plenty of evidence.  That means that either they are seeing stuff that isn't there, or you are failing to see what is there.

[Enki]

Hi Hope,

And any methodology verifying this spiritual element would also have to rely on aspects that a purely scientific verification model is unable to deal with.

I am quite  happy to go along with this.  So, what is the methodology  that can verify this spiritual element? Remember, I suggest it would have to fulfill the requirements that I have laid out.

And I've already mentioned one such phenomenon - miraculous (or to use the non-believers term - spontaneous) healing.  Can't remember exactly who it was, but on a previous thread on miraculous/spontaneous healing, one poster pointed out that the human body repirs itself very effectively and normally, often without help.  I've also seen that argument used on other forums I am or have been a member of.  Unfortunately, this kind of healing isn't referred to as 'spontaneous' healing (nor is it referred to as 'miraculous' healing).  Those terms are reserved for situations that medical science has proved unable to resolve.  Again, situations that science is not in a position to explain!

Spontaneous healing does not eradicate the possibility of it being naturally explicable, nor does it suggest that the only other explanation is a spiritual one. So, it fails as a verification example on both counts.

Whilst you 'see no evidence for it' there are many people who, looking at the same material, have found plenty of evidence.  That means that either they are seeing stuff that isn't there, or you are failing to see what is there.

No, you misunderstand the point. I'm quite sure that many people see plenty of things which they think point towards a spiritual world, as, I am sure, there are plenty of people who don't. Whether either party is right or wrong is neither here nor there. The point I am making is about the quality of such evidence(as I have described) in either eliminating one view or the other in these instances. So, when you suggest, that 'the  other part of the natural world" exists, you surely have to explain your methodology which leads to this certain conclusion, a methodology which has to be rigorous enough to support your assertion. Otherwise, what you are claiming is simply a belief. 

[Hope]

Hi Hope,

I am quite  happy to go along with this.  So, what is the methodology  that can verify this spiritual element? Remember, I suggest it would have to fulfill the requirements that I have laid out.

Precisely, it would have to fulfill the requirements you have laid out - such that you would be asking a 'physical' verification process to verify 'non-physical' issues.  Very clever - NOT!

Spontaneous healing does not eradicate the possibility of it being naturally explicable, nor does it suggest that the only other explanation is a spiritual one. So, it fails as a verification example on both counts.

Oddly enough, the circumstances in which the concept of miracle (or spontaneous healing) is invoked tend to refer to the extremes of health conditions; situtions whereby the body's immune and other protective and rehabilitative arealready deemed, by medical science, to have been seriously compromised or even destroyed. Often, the condition/illness/whatever has existed for years, during which the body's systems have progressively shut down and/or collapsed.  Even from a scientific perspective, a natural explanation is very very unlikely, if not impossible.

No, you misunderstand the point. I'm quite sure that many people see plenty of things which they think point towards a spiritual world, as, I am sure, there are plenty of people who don't. Whether either party is right or wrong is neither here nor there. The point I am making is about the quality of such evidence(as I have described) in either eliminating one view or the other in these instances. So, when you suggest, that 'the  other part of the natural world" exists, you surely have to explain your methodology which leads to this certain conclusion, a methodology which has to be rigorous enough to support your assertion. Otherwise, what you are claiming is simply a belief.

See answer to 1st paragraph, above.

[Hope]

Behave yourself ippy!

Clearly ippy doesn't believe that his posts show fortitude and intelligence, Floo   

[Hope]

Mostly I read and admire the posts of those with the fortitude and intelligence to respond.

I ish a few more of them included the latter, Susan.  Most of the time they simpy repeat what has been said before, and which has been shown to be suspect by far better brains on this board that mine.

[Shaker]

I ish a few more of them included the latter, Susan.  Most of the time they simpy repeat what has been said before

... in response to the same old unevidenced, fallacy-riddled, assertion-heavy bollocks which has been posted before. If you lot changed the record you could expect the response to be different.

and which has been shown to be suspect by far better brains on this board that mine.

I would ask for examples of this but given your history and habit of dodging, know better than to do so.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Even from a scientific perspective, a natural explanation is very very unlikely, if not impossible.

How do you know that?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

The term is one that has been created to explain something that science is unable to explain.

Do you mean:

a) Something that is currently unexplained by science.

b) Something that can never be explained by science

In the first case do things get promoted for non natural to natural when a scientific explanation arises. e.g. In you view is thunder something that was one non natural but is now natural?

In the second case how would you know? i.e. If you had lived before thunder was understood, you would have declared it non natural and something that could never be explained by science.

You have alluded to miraculous healings as an example of something you class as non natural. I still don't see how application of science can't help in this area.

For example let's take the case of intercessory prayer (I am sure you have said in the past that you think that this occurs).

The claim take two parts:

1) That prayer has a beneficial outcome to patients i.e they do better than patients not prayed for.

2) The cause of this beneficial outcome is to do with divine intervention.

Before we get onto point two we need to establish if point one is true or not. If it cannot be established as true we don't need to give the second point any consideration i.e. we don't need an explanation for a phenomenon that does not occur.

So my question to you is, why isn't the scientific method the perfect one for establishing the first point?

I agree that it can say nothing about point two, i.e. is divine intervention involved, but it can certainly establish the truth of point one.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Science will never be able to prove that the spiritual element of nature doesn't/can't exist nor will it's proponents ever be in a position to even cast doubt on it.

I don't think anyone has ever tried to do that.

Actually it is people like you who cast doubt on it by being unable to show how you know what you claim to know that goes beyond, a poor understanding of what science is, personal incredulity and fallacious reasoning.

[/quote]

I realise that you and others have tried hard to do so, but every time one or other of you comes up with another 'appeal to science' you simply point to the fact that you don't understand the other part of the natural world.

Firstly you need to show that there is an other part of the world before we get ahead of ourselves by attempting to understand it.

Note that this a position of scepticism. No one that I am aware of is saying that there can be no other part of the world, but simply that is has not been demonstrated.

[Shaker]

How do you know that?

He doesn't.

[Sebastian Toe]

situtions whereby the body's immune and other protective and rehabilitative arealready deemed, by medical science, to have been seriously compromised or even destroyed.

This is the medical science that you seem to suggest gets stuff wrong?
What if they are wrong in those instances?
What if they in fact have not been 'seriously compromised or even destroyed.'?

[Enki]

Precisely, it would have to fulfill the requirements you have laid out - such that you would be asking a 'physical' verification process to verify 'non-physical' issues.  Very clever - NOT!
Oddly enough, the circumstances in which the concept of miracle (or spontaneous healing) is invoked tend to refer to the extremes of health conditions; situtions whereby the body's immune and other protective and rehabilitative arealready deemed, by medical science, to have been seriously compromised or even destroyed. Often, the condition/illness/whatever has existed for years, during which the body's systems have progressively shut down and/or collapsed.  Even from a scientific perspective, a natural explanation is very very unlikely, if not impossible.
See answer to 1st paragraph, above.

Others have made what I think are pertinent points, although I feel sure you might not agree.

However to answer your post directly:

1)Again you misunderstand. The natural world is pretty well universally accepted including, by the way, yourself. Therefore there is no need to substantiate it. The spiritual world is not generally accepted or even agreed on what it consists of, hence the need for evidence which shows its existence and which excludes the natural world. If it were the other way round, then I would agree with you, but it isn't. So, I would say to you again, what is your methodology which can verify, and furthermore clarify this spiritual element?

2)I would suggest again that what you call spontaneous healing does not only include the possibility of natural explanation, but does not seem to support your hypothesis of a spiritual dimension at all. Spontaneous deterioration would also have to be taken into account when looking at the evidence. Even if one discounted this possibility of natural explanations, what one seems to be left with is an entirely indiscriminate process where healing/deterioration seems to happen on what looks like a random basis. This does not seem to hang well with the idea that a spiritual element is at play.

3)See response 1.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Others have made what I think are pertinent points, although I feel sure you might not agree.

However to answer your post directly:

1)Again you misunderstand. The natural world is pretty well universally accepted including, by the way, yourself. Therefore there is no need to substantiate it. The spiritual world is not generally accepted or even agreed on what it consists of, hence the need for evidence which shows its existence and which excludes the natural world. If it were the other way round, then I would agree with you, but it isn't. So, I would say to you again, what is your methodology which can verify, and furthermore clarify this spiritual element?

2)I would suggest again that what you call spontaneous healing does not only include the possibility of natural explanation, but does not seem to support your hypothesis of a spiritual dimension at all. Spontaneous deterioration would also have to be taken into account when looking at the evidence. Even if one discounted this possibility of natural explanations, what one seems to be left with is an entirely indiscriminate process where healing/deterioration seems to happen on what looks like a random basis. This does not seem to hang well with the idea that a spiritual element is at play.

3)See response 1.

Very well put, especially point 1.

[Hope]

Others have made what I think are pertinent points, although I feel sure you might not agree.

However to answer your post directly:

1)Again you misunderstand. The natural world is pretty well universally accepted including, by the way, yourself. Therefore there is no need to substantiate it. The spiritual world is not generally accepted or even agreed on what it consists of, hence the need for evidence which shows its existence and which excludes the natural world. If it were the other way round, then I would agree with you, but it isn't. So, I would say to you again, what is your methodology which can verify, and furthermore clarify this spiritual element?

2)I would suggest again that what you call spontaneous healing does not only include the possibility of natural explanation, but does not seem to support your hypothesis of a spiritual dimension at all. Spontaneous deterioration would also have to be taken into account when looking at the evidence. Even if one discounted this possibility of natural explanations, what one seems to be left with is an entirely indiscriminate process where healing/deterioration seems to happen on what looks like a random basis. This does not seem to hang well with the idea that a spiritual element is at play.

3)See response 1.

enki, may I point out a couple of errors.  I can quite easily acknowledge the natural world - I have never done anything but.  However, my experience of life as a whole is that the 'natural world' that can be verified by sceintific testing and experiment is not the whole of the natural world.  Yes, in a wa, one has to experience before one appreciates it - in the same way that, for instance, one has to experience Niagara Falls (or Victoria Falls) before one can fully appreciate their majesty.  They are more than just a physical drop in a river bed and the resultant waterfall.

Secondly, I don't talk about spontaneous healing; I have only used the phrase in my posts because it is the explanation - that has no scientific grounding behind it - that some here choose to use instead of the term 'miraculous healing'.  In other words, they prefer to use one 'unscientific' term, instead of another.  As regards your invocation of randomness, there is a degree of randomness with spontaneous healing, there seems to be no rhyme or reason for it from a scientific point of view.  At least with miraculous healing, which tends to follows prayer, there is a some form of reason.

[Sebastian Toe]

tends?

[Shaker]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[Rhiannon]

I know I've said this before, but Hope has told us of the young man he knows whose fractured arm or wrist healed miraculously following prayer. Except such things are common in young people; a similar thing happened to the seventeen year old son of my driving instructor. Only without the prayer bit.