Science is inherently atheistic

[polymath257]

Again, I really don't see anything more difficult than dealing with any other sort of dangerous creature that we don't understand. For those creatures in the wild, we seldom are capable of doing struct controls. All we can do, especially at first, is describe, catalog behaviors, and make a few hypotheses. Through more observation, some of the hypotheses may be shown wrong.

We do NOT have to measure under an assumption of natural laws for the creature itself. But, for example, if we can photograph it, that implies some sort of interaction with light. If we can hear it, that implies some sort of interaction with pressure waves in the air. Even if we don't understand the nature of those interactions, that is, at least, an 'in' to understanding what the creature is and how it functions. If we can record a transformation into a bat, we might be able to do a frame by frame analysis to see whether mass is conserved and, if not, what happens to is.

All said, this would lead to some *amazing* insights into physics.

The point is that natural laws are *descriptive*, not *prescriptive*. We find out natural laws by looking at phenomena and finding descriptions of what we observe, looking for patterns all the time. A natural law is a type of general description of patterns that we see. To say there is no 'natural law' operative simply means there are no patterns that we can discern and/or no descriptions that are useful for understanding.

Although I don't agree, I respect your rationale. Photographing a vampire doesn't demonstrate a vampire until you can prove it's a vampire.  If not, it could be your friend in a mask playing a practical joke on you.  On the day of your "scientific presentation" he shows up in his vampire outfit.  You would have to have a "hands on" approach.  If you didn't get the blood sucked out of you, then maybe you could continue.

Or if you think it's in a cave, what if it was in bat form.  How are you going to know which bat to examine?  Go fondle all of them until one tries to kill you?

How do you know it didn't leave the cave altogether, even if by walking through a wall?  Maybe it's in a coffin in a hidden chamber and has decided to take a nap for 1000 years.  Are you going to wait for it? Aren't vampires also supposed to be immune from reflection, so the camera would be a waste of time anyway.

Again, nothing inherently more difficult than trying to figure out the mating behavior of sea turor where their young go after they hatch. Some investigations require more patience and care than others. That doesn't mean the investigation is impossible.

If it's supernatural, then we can't assume that any of it has to be subject to natural laws.

Again, all that natural laws are is observed patterns. If the 'supernatural' can be detected and shows consistent patterns (even the patterns that can be seen in living things), then it can be investigated scientifically.

The *only* way to have a supernatural is to make it *completely* undetectable or show absolutely no patterns of behavior. But in that case, what is the difference with mere non-existence?

---

Your objections could apply equally as well to gravity.  We don't know what gravity is, but we do know it's effects and the order displayed.  If your objections suggest that we don't know what we're talking about with respect to gravity, I have to suspect there is something wonky with your ideas on this.

Most of the time I agree with you, so just chalk this off me attempting to agree to disagree.   You can't equally apply it to "gravity" because we know what gravity is and its impact in the natural world.  I don't believe there are too many people out there who would seriously try to challenge Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  Vampires on the other hand, may not be bound even by gravity, and based on some of the B movies I've seen, they're not assumed to be either.

Well, first of all, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is known to be wrong in detail. It has been replaced (for more precise situations) with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Newton's ideas are a very good *approximation*, but they aren't the final word.

Second, the way we know about gravity and its effects is because we can make observations. In the case of gravity, we make observations of planets and falling things. It is the patterns of behavior that we find that lead us to our theories about gravity.

Again, whether vampires are or are not 'bound' by gravity is something to be determined via observation. Vampires may be hard to detect and verify, but so are neutrinos and dark matter. But science works perfectly well for the latter. Why not for the former?