Sentences with phrase «supernatural explanations»

... supernatural explanations always mean the end of inquiry: that's the way God wants it, end of story.

Because it requires supernatural explanations of natural phenomena, creationism does not meet these standards.

The religious emphasis on otherworldly beliefs evolved, Wilson says, because supernatural explanations seem to motivate human cooperation better than factual ones.

After conservatives won a majority on the state board in 2004, they quickly moved to adopt standards that critics say were tainted with creationist ideology, including a definition of science aimed at allowing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

Earthquakes and hurricanes are only two examples of a plethora of physical phenomena that are well understood by science today, and which had religious / supernatural explanations in ages past.

Magic isn't not amenable to scientific scrutiny becuase supernatural explanations are sooner or later revealed to be simply natural.

Everything turns upon how precisely we abandon natural causation in favor of supernatural explanations — i.e. whether by the «nevertheless» of faith (cf. Glauben und Verstehen, pp. 214ff.)

Evolution, he says, is based upon a «highly controversial philosophical presupposition,» naturalism, which holds that natural phenomena have natural explanations, not supernatural explanations.

Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist: «The problem is to get [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.»

So far you are just demonstrating how sophisticated natural explanations are, and how supernatural explanations are just black boxes of magic.

@transframer With respect, the parts in which you invoke science / logic are wholly dependent on invoking supernatural explanations, before, during and after the science / logic parts.

If you need to resort to further supernatural explanations, then again, any appeal to actual evidence is pointless because your position is not based on evidence.

There is nothing convincing about supernatural explanations as they are, by definition, not able to be scruitinized in the light of reason.

The problem is to get [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.

Scientism claims that the natural world is all there is, that supernatural explanations of the world are irrational, that everything can be reduced to physical causes, and that the only things we can know as true are those which Science reveals — supported by evidence, submitted to experimentation, and reviewed by peers.

He posits «that supernatural explanations, while not suitable in every case, should be welcome on the scholarly table along with other explanations often discussed,» for «antisupernaturalism has reigned as an inflexible Western academic premise long enough.»

Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.»

You are absolutely right that a lot of stuff gets supernatural explanations that are mundane, and I am happy that there are atheists who challenge spiritual claims and force religious people to look hard at their beliefs.

Are their divorce and infidelity rates too low to be explained without resorting to supernatural explanations?

Over the course of time as we learn more about the world around us scientific explanations have displaced many supernatural explanations.

Over time science has shown many of these supernatural explanations to be wrong as sciences expands what it knows.

There are many, many examples of supernatural explanations eventually debunked by science.

What are your examples of fulfilled Biblical prophecies that can only have supernatural explanations?

But what about the parts of science that seem open to supernatural explanations?

We understand now that this is a natural phenomenon resulting form the way in which fungal spores distribute themselves, but prior to scientific understanding of fungal reproduction, various cultures concocted supernatural explanations.

There is a supernatural explanation (Genesis 1) for their origins.

It's made me more comfortable that I don't need a supernatural explanation for the way things are.»

If you want to add the existence of a supernatural explanation as a premise or fact you need to do that.

In other words, in every case where we've been able determine the validity of a supernatural explanation it has been shown to be wrong.

For example, if you look at divorce rates among Christians there is nothing about them that needs a supernatural explanation.

I don't assume automatically that there must be a supernatural explanation for anything, only the things that can't be explained by the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

Why wouldn't this explanation be just as good if not better than a supernatural explanation?

You seem to think that «faster than the speed of light» is something outside of known physics that needs a supernatural explanation.

We are meant to believe that these utterances predict the subsequent history of the Jews with such uncanny specificity so as to admit of only a supernatural explanation.

Again, all of these scenarios are much more probable than the Christian supernatural explanation.

There is no reason to believe the supernatural explanation without evidence of the supernatural.

Obviously there are alternative answers that have prevailed for a very long time, but evolution has replaced a supernatural explanation of human origins with a naturalistic one.

They have not, instead employing only negative evidence in the form of «if evolutionary biologists can not present a natural explanation of X, then a supernatural explanation of X must be true.»

Not exact matches

-- Michael Scherer spent hours in early February interviewing Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County sheriff who had his conviction pardoned by Trump and is now running for Arizona's Senate seat: «Each of the Republicans running for Senate in Arizona this year claims a special bond with President Trump, but only one describes it as a supernatural connection beyond rational explanation.

Also, there are things that people might expect from an explanation (supernatural or natural).

You have chosen to believe it's not possible for God to exist a priori so any possible indication that he may, you simply reject as not possible even when there is no other scientific explanation for credible miraculous events (ones that can not be mere coincidences) other than supernatural.

Your «interpretations» of the «bible» are purely «subjective», along with all other non-scientific, supernatural «explanations» of origins.

Never in the history of human kind has any supernatural or divine explanation ever proven true... but many, many have proven to have a far better, simpler natural explanation.

We believe that anything «supernatural» has a valid, and generally scientific, explanation to it.

The fact you hang you hat on the inability on science to falsify your god and your claimed supernatural non explanations is not a «feature»..

(Romans 1:20) there was no other alternative explanation for the world existing than the various supernatural creation myths.

According to the logic you used in «cause and effect» you should reject «supernatural» as an explanation... but you don't and that is why you are being intellectually dishonest.

Unfortunately for your side, there are countless examples throughout history where believers in supernatural beings such as god and evil spirits attributed various phenomenon to them, only to have science later debunk those explanations.

My point, in case it wasn't clear to you, is that in times past people have attributed phenomena in the physical world to supernatural causes, only to have science later debunk those explanations.

What use is it resorting to the supernatural when there are just plain boring natural explanations to be had?