Science can observe the effect, if it exists. But if it is truly supernatural,
science cannot learn anything more about it (i.e. its cause). So, if horoscopes
did have predictive power for supernatural reasons, science could only use
statistics to try to observe or verify the claimed performance. But if
scientists (psychologists) were able to determine a cause (e.g. that readers of
horoscopes have a predilection to "find" the results they expect), then science
is investigating causes that are presumably not supernatural.
Wait a minute! Isn't that what atheists accuse us of? And we mount the defense
that natural explanations don't preclude other higher explanations? And yet I
cast suspicion on astrologers --who could then make the same defense! They
could say, just because horoscopes can be explained by other means, doesn't mean
their claimed effect isn't real. Polkinghorne's tea kettle back again! And so
what if they don't display a proven track record for science to see. Does
prayer do better? (I think it does, -- but what science sees may be another
matter.) I can just see atheists and YECs going into excited huddles. How do
we defend the difference?
I appreciate Loren's beautifully crafted 5 point essay. I think it goes a long
way in answering some of these differences. Thanks Loren.
--Merv
> David Campbell wrote:
> > It is possible to scientifically investigate a supernatural claim if
> > the supernatural agent is posited to have a regular, measurable effect
> > on physical objects. E.g., see if people born between certain dates
> > actually have experiences more in keeping with their newspaper
> > horoscope than those born at other times.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 12 17:26:48 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 12 2007 - 17:26:48 EST