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

[jgh7]

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?

[TheJackelantern]

Y'know, that's a good idea. I could use a few more initials after my name, come to think of it; my signature doesn't go QUITE off the end of the page yet.

Unfortunately you have to earn those initials... Playing a game of ignorance in a chair isn't going to do that for you and have any sort of real value. This means you actually need to know what you are talking about. This isn't an insult or an attack on you. This is a fact and a point being made.

Oh, humor me. TELL me how sticking my hand in a light socket will show me what humans are made out of. Other, that is, than stuff that will burn.

Yes it will, and your intentional ignorance of it is not my problem.

Why, THANK you, Jack. I actually was under the impression that the four elements were fire, earth, air and water.

You're welcome

So, ultimately, all your verbiage is to let me know that all matter is made up of energy...well, duh. That's a bit of a weasel, though.

That's a fact, and has nothing to do with being a weasel.. Playing a game of ignorance is being a weasel however..

Jack. Your claim was NOT that I would burn if I put my hand in a light socket.

Your right, it had nothing to do with claiming you would burn, it's the fact you will burn and why..

Your claim was that putting my hand in a light socket would show me what elements I was made of.

Incorrect.... And your following argument shows is either your confusion on the subject, ignorance of the subject being discussed, or your bad attempt at trying to twist what I had said. News flash, the elements are made of energy and have everything to do with electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.. and you might want to learn the periodic table if you do not know it or understand it. This is important so can know the differences between atoms and what that has to do with biochemistry. But I suspect you knew I was not addressing your chemical make up in the context of biochemistry.. This shift of argument came from you, and it seemed kinda clever.../sarcasm.. But of course I was addressing the fact you are made of energy. If you want to get into biochemistry, we can do that too.

You know, there's quite a list of those, and I guarantee you that, unless there is a gas chromatograph (or other, similar, measuring device) somewhere about, and I was in a state to read it (and separate those gasses which come from ME from those which come from the 'not me' that also ended up burning) that sticking my hand in a light socket would not achieve that goal. Since that is so, I can only assume that your advice was not only less than serious...indeed, down-right mean spirited along the lines of 'stick it where the sun don't shine."

Playing a game of intentional ignorance and you think people should respond nicely to you? Seriously?... Since when does dishonesty earn you the right to be respected in a debate? .. And yes, sticking your hand in a light socket will demonstrate the point. Your ignorance of physics is not my problem, this is your problem. And we are not talking about separating of mixtures. We are talking about energy and electromagnetism.. If you want to learn the periodic table and the differences of atoms to which gives us the chemical diversity of our world, that would be a good starting point for you in this discussion. After that, you can then go play with a chromatograph.

Just a hint, though: before you go around doing that sort of thing, you should be very certain what the educational background of your target actually is.

Giving your responses, I can certainly tell yours isn't going to involve physics.. Because if it did, you would have understood why I gave you the light socket example rather than incorrectly addressing it.

But I AM glad you are in College. Really.

I'm SURE you are...

Did you actually read what you just wrote? If so, consider my point made...your claim is that you are 100% positive that you know what we are made of...and I absolutely guarantee that your physics and biology professors would cringe if they heard you say that.

Yes we are 100 percent positive... Your argument is like trying to argue burnt toast isn't burnt taost in terms of physics. That's how bad your argument is here on this subject. We know exactly what we are made of, and no they will not cringe.. There is literally no test you can carryout that will contradict what I've said.. But hey, you can feel free to try...

While I commend your ability to research through youtube, you are wandering off the topic a bit.

You're the one that brought this all up. And youtube is a good source for some issues.. Videos tend to be very good tools vs having someone read it all in a wall of text. I think the readers here don't mind a few videos on the subjects..

BTW, I'm from a belief system that doesn't figure that just because WE can describe the process, it means that God did NOT do it, nor that saying 'god did it' means we must not, and can not, describe the process.

We don't just simply describe processes.. Processes aren't the only thing we address. We address what things are, and we measure them, test them, play with them, and try to manipulate them ect. There is a lot of things we do. But if you want to discuss processes such as water turning to ice, you need to tell us exactly how you think your deity is involved in that process via measurable empirical evidence that doesn't just ride on an assertion / appeal to ignorance. Hence, there is no evidence what-so-ever that a deity has any involvement in any process. Especially if you understand physics.. This following example is the equivalent of the type of argument you deposited here in this debate:

Example:

KANSAS CITY, KS"As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling."Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity"which is taught to our children as a law"is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

I wonder how many true believers of this are going to be willing to meet me at a cliff to jump off of... This type of intentional ignorance is what I am dealing with here in your own arguments on these subject. There can be no meaningful discussion had from such arguments. It only drives discussions into pure ignorance. And often that is the goal or tactic of such arguments. This which lack any credibility or any sense of honest discourse.

Now, I realize that this might put a kink in your assumptions, Jack.

I've made no assumptions here.. I based my argument on empirically supported position..

I rather hope not, though, since your assumptions regarding my lack of education and of science are actually rather entertaining: a bit like watching a Monty Python sketch.

This only deals with a real education on the subject, and has no baring on whether or not you lack an education.. So tell me, how much of physics do you actually understand? If I give you a physics problem here, could you solve it for me? And understand what it is you are solving, and understand the answer?

Wait. What?

Dark matter may or may not be going through you, or be in you at all. If it's a type of particle as one theory suggests, it doesn't normally interact with normal matter. It would go right through you..Kinda like throwing a tennis ball between to bowling balls that are several blocks apart. You are unlikely to hit either of them, or have an effect. However, if it's based on new research, it might not exist at all and may just be virtual particle phenomenon. This which may unify dark matter with dark energy..

You are claiming that "X-rays and other Cosmic rays do this all the time" and DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING?

Don't change anything had to do with your argument. (hence, we are still made of energy). Had nothing to do with whether or not X-rays or Cosmic rays change anything.

I suggest that you take human biology 101. I imagine that it's an undergrad prerequisite, isn't it? Usually is.

I suggest you understand what's being said before posting... Please note the following..

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.

Then why did you question me telling you were are made of energy and are electromagnetic phenomenon? You tell me to take human chemistry 101 while ignoring what chemistry has to do with the differences in atoms, electromagnetism, and the periodic table. Yes, all that to get back to square one..., was that necessary?

...........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.

I don't.. I've only told you what I know, I never stated I knew everything.. Please quote me where I made such a claim.

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.

And many religious people today partake in credible scientific peer reviewed work on these subjects too. I think you're forming a straw man here.. I almost wonder if you realized that some of the videos I posted were actually from Christian scientists. Their work is notable since they do not inject their religion into their science and produce pseudoscience for the intention of preying on peoples ignorance.. They stuck to the scientific method in regards to their work. Their religious thoughts were a separate issue all together, and most of them lived in the pre-atomic era.

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.

In the 21st century here in America, they definitely are not bed fellows. I can accept credible work by theists in the scientific field to which is peer reviewed. I will not accept Creationist pseudoscience and appeals to ignorance as being worth anything. I'm not sure you understand what I am actually addressing and what I am not addressing here.

[Oldfarmhouse]

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.

I had a philosphy professor who said that had it been Socrates instead of Moses who was given the ten commandments -- God and Socrates would have just gotten around to discussing the third commandment.

As for the lying creationists. I am, as of this point, convinced that there are certain prominent creationists who are knowingly and intentionally lying through their teeth for the specific purpose of deception. Persons such as Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Casey Luskin, Ken Ham, and I'm not excluding Ben Stein from the list (that could go on.)

These people have disseminated false information, and when they are presented with evidence that they are in error, they continue to spout the same lies, knowing that they are wrong. They direct their propaganda to a specific audience -- one that is onlt interested in hearing what they want to hear. The hucksters know that these people are not going to double-check, they are not going to question, they are only going to believe no matter what.

Based on the recording that James Rani's crew received from Peter Popoff and his wife who said terrible things about the people who were making them rich -- I don't thing that Ham, Comfort, Hovind, et al are any different. These are obviously no honest people.

I'm not saying that every single creationist is a liar -- there are some who sincerely believe their own nonsense -- but most of them are lying. They are cynical nihilists who are laughing all the way to the bank. That is my stand and if I were to believe otherwise I would need to see some hard cold evidence.

[Oldfarmhouse]

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.

Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions -- I have a bunch of relatives who reside in Kentucky -- it seems that the only job opportunities for them are in preaching or some sort of criminal activity. Some of them may be atheists -- more likely the preachers.

And I knew that you are female -- it says so to the left -- then there is a picture -- you? If so you are a cutie-pie. I am aware that you are too old for juvenile flirtation -- but I figured it's OK since I am too.

[TheJackelantern]

These people have disseminated false information, and when they are presented with evidence that they are in error, they continue to spout the same lies, knowing that they are wrong. They direct their propaganda to a specific audience -- one that is onlt interested in hearing what they want to hear. The hucksters know that these people are not going to double-check, they are not going to question, they are only going to believe no matter what.

And many theists seem to practice many of these qualities in debates.. Appeal to ignorance being one to the main tools of argument so they don't have to actually post anything of value or intellectually credible. Dishonest discourse is very rampant on the internet when dealing with many theists. Not all of them, but a good number of them do this... Dianaiad does this often, and so do a few others here in various ways. :/ So far, I really haven't found myself in an honest discussion with a theist on this forum yet. Why is that? ...

[TheJackelantern]

double post.

[Baz]

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.

[Baz]

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..

Just my point of view as a bystander to your debate with MR. Dianaiad.

You are probably loosing it big time.
You appear to be so worked up about religion in general you arent taking in anything she is saying.
( Side note; This is something I have noted several times since I came to this site and I find it amazing coming as it does from people with (so far as I can tell) sound scientific backgrounds.)


As I said before you lost me when you said you where 100% certain in my book that usually means Im not looking or listening anymore. End of science.

[Baz]

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.

Well theres the photo.

Please forgive me I just had to.

Must be proof that there is a Devil because he was defiantly on my shoulder then.

[Baz]

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.

I had a philosphy professor who said that had it been Socrates instead of Moses who was given the ten commandments -- God and Socrates would have just gotten around to discussing the third commandment.

As for the lying creationists. I am, as of this point, convinced that there are certain prominent creationists who are knowingly and intentionally lying through their teeth for the specific purpose of deception. Persons such as Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Casey Luskin, Ken Ham, and I'm not excluding Ben Stein from the list (that could go on.)

These people have disseminated false information, and when they are presented with evidence that they are in error, they continue to spout the same lies, knowing that they are wrong. They direct their propaganda to a specific audience -- one that is onlt interested in hearing what they want to hear. The hucksters know that these people are not going to double-check, they are not going to question, they are only going to believe no matter what.

Based on the recording that James Rani's crew received from Peter Popoff and his wife who said terrible things about the people who were making them rich -- I don't thing that Ham, Comfort, Hovind, et al are any different. These are obviously no honest people.

I'm not saying that every single creationist is a liar -- there are some who sincerely believe their own nonsense -- but most of them are lying. They are cynical nihilists who are laughing all the way to the bank. That is my stand and if I were to believe otherwise I would need to see some hard cold evidence.

I dont have any hard cold evidence but how about an attempt at logic (you can pull it apart later if you like.)

Its pretty certain that there are a lot of people using all sorts of beliefs (religion, politics, the lot) to make money and a lot of it at that, I would suspect that the vast majority of them lie there heads off so much that they have forgotten what they used to believe and because money is now there god (and it has been said that you can only have one god) they probably dont believe anything they say.

BUT
All these people are being given money from others much less well off, these are the true believers they part with money they probably can little afford to support whatever or whoever.
I can only conclude that all these people are true believers who when asked about their belief would tell you the truth.

[dianaiad]

Y'know, that's a good idea. I could use a few more initials after my name, come to think of it; my signature doesn't go QUITE off the end of the page yet.

Unfortunately you have to earn those initials...

The fact that I have them is generally considered proof that I earned them, Jack. and the fact that you can't seem to keep a civil finger on your keyboard, or care to actually notice who the person you are insulting actually is OR actually says, tells me that you aren't worth the ulcer it's giving me to keep my temper when replying to you. So, in the parlance of an internet that is probably older than you are..."plonk."