Yupp, that's the time when science took off and advanced exponentially to what we know today. One of the main reason why science was so successful in the west is the fact that we learned to separate science from the supernatural, something that hasn't occurred in the rest of the world. Some days ago someone posted an article about science in the Muslim world and why it didn't make the same progress as in the West but stagnated and even declined from a once higher state.
The point is they didn't make that separation but allowed the supernatural to creep in their explanations (i.e. so Allah wills).
Here is a quote from Arthur N. Strahler where he explains better than I could why science and the supernatural don't mix:
Supernatural forces, if they exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science - that's simply what the word "supernatural" means. There can be no limit to the kinds and shapes of supernatural forces and forms the human mind is capable of conjuring up from "nowhere." Scientists therefore have no alternative but to ignore "claims" of the existence of supernatural forces and causes. This exclusion is a basic position that must be stoutly adhered to by scientists or their entire system of processing information will collapse. To put it another way, if science must include a supernatural realm, it will be forced into a game where there are no rules. Without rules, no scientific observation, explanation, or prediction can enjoy a high probability of being a correct picture of the real world.There are those who call themselves Christians who, for some irreconcilable reasons, choose to believe in evolution, and I love to talk to those types because evolution is not compatible with Christianity, and it can be demonstrated easily enough.
Since I'm not a Christian I can't comment on this but I know many Christians who don't have a problem with the Theory of Evolution (including the pope).
Science deals with the ordered universe as God made it. God made it ordered so we could live and function in it.
Science deals with the universe as we observe it, whether a god made it or not. And just because we think it is ordered doesn't mean that it had to be created by a god. You don't know what a universe might look like which had not been created by a god and as long as you can't provide at least one of these uncreated universes to compare it with our universe the claim that ours was created by a supernatural being is unsupported and neither the order we observe is an argument for it being created by a god nor the chaos we also observe is an argument against a creator.
Also, what makes you think that conclusions you draw from observations within our universe can be applied to a universe as a whole?
The two (God and physical laws) are not mutually exclusive as naturalists would have everyone believe.
Maybe there are some naturalists who want to make you believe this but there are also a lot of naturalists (some even on this board) who don't say that a god is incompatible with physical laws.
Newton was a theist who believed in the supernatural but was able to come up with calculus and other important discoveries. Conversely, it would logically follow that an atheist would pressuppose chaos, not order as Newton did.
Ad what makes you believe this? Why is it logical that an atheist presupposes chaos? I for one don't.
An atheist can also claim that the universe shows order because there are no gods who meddle with it.
Just because someone believes in the supernatural does not require that person to come up with a supernatural explanation - such people like myself recognize that God made the ordered universe such as it is. How is this in any way incompatible with true scientific discovery?
And that's what I said. You can be a Christian (or otherwise religious person) and still use methodological naturalism when doing science.
It is a non-rational leap to presuppose that natural laws (speed of gravity, of light, Hubble constant, laws of motion, and on and on) just sprang into being by chance+time+matter+energy, isn't it?
And why is it non-rational? What observation (within our universe, or can you see beyond our universe?) has led you to the insight that our universe shows these properties because it has been created by a god? Why can't it show the same properties without being created? What mechanism prevents an uncreated universe to be the same as a created one?
I will answer part of your post today, part tomorrow. You just defined empiricism. Can you prove empirically that only that which is observable is real? Nope. Therefore, your assertion falls on its own head. You are presupposing empiricism in your argument. That being said, you are right, supernatural cannot be observed. Howerver, if God created the ordered universe, then the supernatural is behind the natural and holds it together.
Seeing is believing that miracles do happen
“When its empirical resources are exhausted, science itself closes the door to naturalistic explanation. -William A. Dembski
…This exclusion is a basic position that must be stoutly adhered to by scientists or their entire system of processing information will collapse. To put it another way, if science must include a supernatural realm, it will be forced into a game where there are no rules. Without rules, no scientific observation, explanation, or prediction can enjoy a high probability of being a correct picture of the real world.
“The first proposition we've listed for naturalism states that "Matter/Energy is all there is for eternity,..." and if this is true, then the totality of man is only matter. If there is some degree of consciousness and thought in the brain of man, that thinking is still only a result of matter's properties. Why would these "thoughts" produced by matter (the chemical brain of man) correspond to the truth of reality? Matter has no known interest in truth. Why should chemicals be able to distinguish illusion from reality, since there is no rational and purposive cause for the existence of man or his mind,? ...Of course, naturalists may appeal to scientific inquiry and the laws of logical thought. But this begs the question, because it is the chemical brain which is "thinking" and using the scientific method and the laws of thought ...all of which might still be an illusion, and not reality. C.S.Lewis quotes Prof. Haldane as saying, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms" ("Miracles", p.18). This may be like the motion of atoms to create "thoughts" in a computer ...what is to determine whether those computer "thoughts" are true or not? If naturalism is right, and matter is all there is, then even our "thoughts" about thinking and the brain and everything else may be nothing but illusion. “
“Epistemology is the study of the basis and validity of knowledge, ----and it is because of its inability to know anything for sure, that the worldview of naturalism is self-contradictory, and fails the first truth test. Naturalism logically creates an epistemological vacuum, in which man can never know anything for sure. Informed and consistent naturalism results in epistemological nihilism. “
“The philosophical naturalist (who is consistent) cannot know anything for sure, and yet the first proposition of naturalism makes statements as if they know that "matter is all there is" and that "no supernatural God exists". So, even though the philosophical naturalist does not know that his thinking bears any relationship to reality, still he often audaciously declares that he knows so much that he can categorically rule out the existence of something spiritual. The inconsistency and illogic in such assertions are obvious. “When a man is done philosophizing about the nature of his worldview, can he live it out, and does he actually practice it in his daily life? ...If not, then the actions of his life reveal his true inner conviction of the untruth of that worldview ...it is not livable, therefore, that worldview fails the third truth-test.