levite

I would agree that it does no one much good to point to a physics problem and attempt to solve it by other means. And as you know, I think, I have no problem with the notion that the "how" of the universe is accomplished through interactions of physical laws and evolution of biological organisms-- a notion I embrace readily. I am not, in fact, talking about the phenomena of physics and biology at all. I am talking about revelation, of feeling the presence of God, of awareness of supernatural beings, of being aware of and interacting with energies which are not physical or measurable by instrument, of being aware of subtle connections in the universe that are not manifest to scientific examination. These are arational experiences, and are neither scientific or unscientific notions, but non-scientific notions. I have already accepted that rationalist examination works splendidly for science. It is not such issues that I differ on, but the notion that the scientific paradigm is universally objective, and applicable equally to everything.


For a physics problem, which falls admirably within the scientific/rationalist paradigm, sure. Science is objective. For spiritual and supernatural phenomena, which fall into their own paradigm altogether, science is subjective, because one must choose to apply that paradigm into a different one. There is a difference, in other words, between "fact" and "scientific fact." The latter can be proven using set processes to within mathematical parameters, and can be demonstrated at will. What I would argue is that people's experiences can be factual, and yet not fall within the parameters of "scientifically provable." (I resist the dichotomy of universal subjectivity/objectivity, if for no other reason than it seems too limited. Science is objective to the point at which it becomes theoretical-- for example, how many dimensions are there? Depends on who you ask. Likewise, can we say without doubt that the belief in the existence of God/gods/the supernatural is truly subjective when it is common to every culture, and history is full of claims of mass witnessing of miracles or revelations?) The distinction I am making here is, I think, both real and acceptable. The only point at which it becomes problematic is when people begin attempting to do the reverse of what I have argued is your position of point, namely, to apply the spiritual/supernatural paradigm to the scientific one.

The difference between gravity and Jesus is that they are data from two completely independent subsets of knowledge and experience.

I am in no way trying to diminish or be dismissive of your atheism. And I understand that part of your embrasure of rationalism is the notion that scientific reasoning is universal-- an ultimate authority. I am not in any way suggesting that you not be an atheist or a rationalist. But I do think that the idea that one way of looking at everything is universally applicable and correct is a philosophical belief.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)