When does it become bad to explain things away with science?

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:22 pm

In another thread the argument came up that skeptics will do whatever they can to explain any supernatural event away with science. This raised numerous ethical questions in my mind.

The first question:
Is it morally bad to try and explain away supposed supernatural events with science?

My thoughts on the matter: I actually consider it a moral obligation to do everything possible to explain it away with science. In the past, it has proven to give us great knowledge. E.g.) Learning that lightning wasn't caused by Zeus, but by electrons and other cool scientific stuff.

The next question:
Ok, so perhaps some will concede it's initially not morally bad to explain things away with science, and that perhaps it's the responsible thing to do just to be sure and to possibly grant us better scientific knowledge of how the universe works. But does there come a point when it does become morally bad in the sense that we are being stubborn to the obvious supernatural events that have occurred?

Final Question:
Given all the knowledge we have acquired today throughout historical books, logical thinking, scientific experimentation, etc. Are there any events/phenomena that can be proven to have occurred or that are still occurring that are so obviously supernatural to the point that we should accept them as being from a higher power, and if we don't we are obviously stubborn selfish fools?

TommyFizz · Post by **TommyFizz** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:12 pm

AND THE WINNER IS....DIANAIAD!!!! Seriously Diana, don't ever leave this board, you're just too good.

Oldfarmhouse · Post by **Oldfarmhouse** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:07 pm

Baz wrote:How do obviously well educated people get so closed minded as to think they can be 100% certain about anything?

I find it irritating when it comes from some religious points of view, but to some degree it is expected, when a lot of religious teachings are based around blindly following some guru or other.

For somebody to take that stance from a scientific point of view must by most peoples thinking be bed science.

From my point of view its easer to disregard bad science than bad religion. (not that I see them as in anyway opposites )

Heh, heh, heh, -- you said "bed science." Yes, I know what you meant. Bad science is out there -- all over the place and always has been. Homeopathy, biorythms, pyramid power, creationism -- no actually I don't consider creationism to be bad science -- it's not even that -- just a pack of lies -- at best.

Oldfarmhouse · Post by **Oldfarmhouse** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:24 pm

All that, to get here.

Jack, you posted a great many fun things, and I thank you for all of 'em. I enjoyed watching the youtube videos, and learning new things. Really, I'm serious about that. I also commend your enthusiasm for what you are learning. Keep being enthusiastic.

...........just......don't assume that you know everything, and that of course any theist is an uneducated red neck without a grain of sense. Such hubris and arrogance will not serve you well.

Remember that among the most influential inventors of the scientific method were Muslim scholars, Roger Bacon (A Franciscan Friar) and Isaac Newton, a monotheist who wrote more on religion than he did on scientific thought. It would behoove you to remember who first got the knowledge that you are so gleefully acquiring, and stop assuming that science and religion are always enemies. They are not.

I am fully aware of the fact that all theists are not dumb rednecks.

However....

It just may be the case that all dumb rednecks are theists.

Baz · Post by **Baz** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:45 pm

Oldfarmhouse wrote:
Baz wrote:How do obviously well educated people get so closed minded as to think they can be 100% certain about anything?

I find it irritating when it comes from some religious points of view, but to some degree it is expected, when a lot of religious teachings are based around blindly following some guru or other.

For somebody to take that stance from a scientific point of view must by most peoples thinking be bed science.

From my point of view its easer to disregard bad science than bad religion. (not that I see them as in anyway opposites )
Heh, heh, heh, -- you said "bed science." Yes, I know what you meant. Bad science is out there -- all over the place and always has been. Homeopathy, biorythms, pyramid power, creationism -- no actually I don't consider creationism to be bad science -- it's not even that -- just a pack of lies -- at best.

To lie is to state that something which one knows is not the truth to be the truth. (Intentionally).

I know creationists who appear to genially believe everything they tell you about there viewpoint to be the truth. So they are not lying.

I dont actually know any that think they know everything.
So as far as Im concerned the only time I can be certain that somebody is wrong or possibly lying is when they say they know everything there is to know about something.

Socrates rules OK.

Crazee · Post by **Crazee** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:15 pm

Many great things will be done when experts from the fields of spirituality/theology and scientific advocators of pure logic based thought can come together and work on joint projects. As of now, the forerunners in both groups are too busy trying to prove why they are right and the others are wrong for this realization to occur.

It would symbolize a stronger connection between right brain and left brain in the human species, logical thought harmoniously interacting with intuitive insight is a force that will propel us into areas of experience we can't even imagine right now.

Post by **otseng** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:19 pm

TheJackelantern wrote: If you can't figure that out, you might want to invest in a real education on the subject rather than professing a PHD in intentional ignorance.

Moderator Warning

This would be considered a personal attack and would be against the rules. Rather than saying someone is being intentionally ignorant, simply present the facts to support your case.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:26 pm

Oldfarmhouse wrote:

All that, to get here.

Jack, you posted a great many fun things, and I thank you for all of 'em. I enjoyed watching the youtube videos, and learning new things. Really, I'm serious about that. I also commend your enthusiasm for what you are learning. Keep being enthusiastic.

...........just......don't assume that you know everything, and that of course any theist is an uneducated red neck without a grain of sense. Such hubris and arrogance will not serve you well.

Remember that among the most influential inventors of the scientific method were Muslim scholars, Roger Bacon (A Franciscan Friar) and Isaac Newton, a monotheist who wrote more on religion than he did on scientific thought. It would behoove you to remember who first got the knowledge that you are so gleefully acquiring, and stop assuming that science and religion are always enemies. They are not.
I am fully aware of the fact that all theists are not dumb rednecks.

However....

It just may be the case that all dumb rednecks are theists.

ooh, harsh.....

and certainly good for the giggle.

However, I rather think that it's untrue. In fact, I KNOW it is, since I have the acquaintance of several good ol'boy red neck atheists.

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:37 pm

Baz wrote:How do obviously well educated people get so closed minded as to think they can be 100% certain about anything?

I find it irritating when it comes from some religious points of view, but to some degree it is expected, when a lot of religious teachings are based around blindly following some guru or other.

For somebody to take that stance from a scientific point of view must by most peoples thinking be bed science.

From my point of view its easer to disregard bad science than bad religion. (not that I see them as in anyway opposites )

However, there is no bad science being shown here.. All dianaiad is doing is appealing to ignorance because he can string words together and make the appeal. His argument is equivalent to claiming burnt toast isn't burnt toast because he can make the claim while ignoring the fact it's burnt toast..

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:39 pm

TheJackelantern wrote:
Baz wrote:How do obviously well educated people get so closed minded as to think they can be 100% certain about anything?

I find it irritating when it comes from some religious points of view, but to some degree it is expected, when a lot of religious teachings are based around blindly following some guru or other.

For somebody to take that stance from a scientific point of view must by most peoples thinking be bed science.

From my point of view its easer to disregard bad science than bad religion. (not that I see them as in anyway opposites )
However, there is no bad science being shown here.. All dianaiad is doing is appealing to ignorance because he can string words together and make the appeal. His argument is equivalent to claiming burnt toast isn't burnt toast because he can make the claim while ignoring the fact it's burnt toast..

....and thus we have irrefutable proof that Jack doesn't pay attention. Tell me; is there ANY excuse for his not knowing that I"m not a 'he?'

Though I'm glad he realizes that I can, indeed, 'put words together.' I do, in fact, have a vocabulary and I"m not afraid to use it.

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:22 pm

Moses Yoder wrote:I believe it is bad to think a scientist is right and a Christian is wrong based simply on the fact that the scientist uses "science." The ignorant, unlearned person believes the scientist simply because he puts a rock in a radiometric device and pulls the rock out and says "THIS ROCK IS 75 MILLION YEARS OLD" and the ignoramus believes it simply because that is what the machine has been programmed to do by a "scientist."

A few interesting things about this post:
The poster apparently thinks there are two categories, scientists and Christians. That's a very odd way of dividing the world up. What about all the scientists who are Christians, where do they go? Shouldn't the categories either be scientists and science-haters, or theists and atheists?

Apparently the poster thinks that only ignorant, unlearned people would believe science. Why? Has science had a good or bad track record of figuring out what's going on in the world? For example, what method figured out the world was round, religion or science? How about atoms, who figured that out? Cells? Who figured out how to prevent polio and small pox? Who created the computer the OP typed that post on?

Ironically, while criticizing those who accept science as ignorant, the poster appears to have no understanding of the actual science behind radiometric dating, and how we know that it works.