Could All Scientists Get NATURAL LAW Wrong?

Can a Continuous Miracle Be Possible? Why Would God Suspend His Laws for Matter Day after Day? · Could All Scientists Get NATURAL LAW Wrong?

No, not if they could get the shape of the unverse or what rotates around what wrong. Not if they could get tectonics and fossils of the past wrong.

Could they be wrong about natural law?

Depending on what dimension, the answer is both yes and no.

Scientists clearly are very well trained to spot natural laws (in the kind of objects that are supposed to obey the kind of law the scientists are studying, physicists won't study bacterial reproduction, biologists aren't the go-to on tidal forces). They are excellent at mathematically testing whether the law actually is a law with a specific mathematical formula or not. They are absolutely goodish about finding the exact formula and if the units don't match one to one as in Ampère, Volt and Ohm, to find out the constants of mathematical pairing.

They are also absolute rubbish about finding out what natural laws actually are.

And the reason is, they have no training at all to go about the discussion.

They usually assume, natural laws are causes.

They usually assume that any cause operating outside those laws would be an intruder into the causes.

They presume the causes are causes because they are laws, and that therefore intruding causes wouldn't work, since by definition, they are not bound by these laws.

They presume that even if this cannot absolutely be proven, this is the safest and most practicable assumption, since it promises an uniformity of outcome that we desire and shield us from the fanaticism that belief in truly omnipotent and free entities (like God) could engender.

And they are wrong on each and every point.

Natural laws are not causes, they are descriptions of causes as viewed from certain angles. In reality as we live it, apart from arranged experiments, different causes are always interfering with each other, so most situations more than one natural law would be applicable.

If God exists and angels exist, they are not intruders, they are part of the plot, of the same plot as natural law. In fact, God created the causes that follow the laws, and angels manipulate them on conditions similar but not identic to how we manipulate our bodies.

The reason for being a cause is not being bound and determined by law, but being real. This is also the case of agents that are free.

Denying this neither saves us from an irrational universe we cannot make head or tails of, nor from religious fanaticism, since Atheists have their own.

And if a certain scientist is a bit more cultured on this question, this is according to current procedures not supposed to be the subject of his papers (remember, they are only about which regularities are natural law, or how they work out under certain conditions), and so he is forced to forego influencing other scientists on these questions.

This means that even Christians who are scientists, who did their catechism years ago but undergo scientific formation all the time to not slip behind and to keep up with new stuff, will have an incomplete grasp on how Christianity differs from this usually so called "scientific world view" or how this differs from the actual science that is being done. Let alone non-Christians. I suppose Alex Bunardzic falls into this latter category. Just to show you that I'm not making a straw man about what scientists tell each other about the nature of science or of natural law, I'll quote him:

To avoid such extreme, non-productive views, we must allow for mental activities (for the mind) to enter the picture as a causal factor. This causal factor has the power to determine how reality actually works. And while science recoils from such views, and supernatural posits a mind that is outside of the natural order and is thus capricious (and can only be effective if it somehow manages to suspend the laws of nature), the middle ground can be established by introducing the mind as one of the significant factors (if not the factor) in establishing the natural order of things.

I looked up first a google on "supernatural causes not scientific explanations" (no quotation marks in the search) and found his Science and Supernatural — Two Extreme Views. On Medium.

The fact is that metaphysics is not primarily about what he calls "metaphysical phenomena", that the primary investigator for these things, i e as "showing off" the metaphysical reality as different from what he calls "science" and I would call materialistic naturalism, are not investigated by experiments, but by historic accounts, and that his compromise doesn't clear up very much. There is already a world view in which mind is THE factor in reality, though not the only one, and it's Thomism.

Meanwhile, lots of Catholics eager to present the Faith or some aspect of the Faith to him will water down the Thomistic views of how things work. That's doing the transmission and propagation of the faith a clear disservice, and I don't think it's doing him very much of a service.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Simeon of Jerusalem
18.II.2025

PS, quoting St. Thomas on miracle being "outside the order of any created nature" and each of such having its order:

I answer that, A miracle properly so called is when something is done outside the order of nature. But it is not enough for a miracle if something is done outside the order of any particular nature; for otherwise anyone would perform a miracle by throwing a stone upwards, as such a thing is outside the order of the stone's nature. So for a miracle is required that it be against the order of the whole created nature. But God alone can do this, because, whatever an angel or any other creature does by its own power, is according to the order of created nature; and thus it is not a miracle. Hence God alone can work miracles. [from I Pars, Q 110, A 4]