Let's not get into how one defines a Christian (or a Jew or a Muslim
or...). It is irrelevant to the discussion anyway.
I think the question raised by John Mallinckrodt is "why are some
scientists willing to use supernatural explanations for some things but
not others?" In particular, how does one decide what category a
particular event falls in? Is it simply that it depends on what you
were taught? If so, wouldn't this be a matter of "blind faith"? What
reason would there be to distinguish between those events that allow for
a supernatural cause and those that don't?
Most religious people I know are religious NOT because they were
convinced by evidence in the Bible but rather because they "know in
their hearts" through personal experience that what they believe is
true. Examining evidence for their belief is done only to give them
insight into their beliefs, not as a test of their beliefs.
I don't know if this would count as "blind faith" but it is certainly
different from the purpose for scientists to examine evidence. As I
wrote before, it isn't the "examination of evidence" that separates the
two groups. It has more to with the purpose for doing so: scientists
evaluate evidence for the purpose of developing models that are useful
in the sense that they provide testable predictions.
Maybe it depends on need: only if a testable prediction is needed will a
scientist DEMAND on a natural explanation. Otherwise, a supernatural
one is acceptable. In either case, however, a supernatural one may be
plausible (depending on the beliefs of the scientist).
____________________________________________________
Robert Cohen; 570-422-3428; www.esu.edu/~bbq
East Stroudsburg University; E. Stroudsburg, PA 18301
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l