You wrote:
> In order to perform empirical science, it is necessary to operate under the
> assumptions that nature is both uniform and understandable. If you don't
> like this assumption, then you can reasonably ask why must science be
> empirical?
But I am not sure if you were addressing the previous discussion
or just taking a tack off of it.
The point of the discussion was essentially the conclusion that you
cast in terms of logical positivitism, i.e. natural law is not `god'
(although you perhaps expressed it better).
As to assuming uniformity to perform science, I agree completely and
said so (including a lengthy post a month or so ago). I don't think
this is in dispute.
However, as you say, scientists generally don't appreciate some of the
philosophical nuances and assume that the uniformity they *can* observe
implies a uniformity where they *cannot* observe it. This is the
assumption that I think is used to preclude God (e.g. it leads to the
presumption that there are *no* miracles).
Chaotic phenomena illustrates this well. Many scientists seem
to believe that if it were possible to compute with enough precision,
the results of these volatile processes could be predicted. This is
pure faith of a type which perhaps can never be tested.
Faith does not need to defend itself from science, but occasionally
it is important to remind scientists of the limits of science so
that they are not deceived into thinking science precludes faith.
--Dave