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?

[dianaiad]

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.

Thank you...and the older one is, the more fun juvenile flirtation is.

[micatala]

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.

Moderator Comment


Just a reminder that unproductive one-liners like this are against the rules.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 55:

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.

I don't doubt the peddlers of religious woo would love to have their notions elevated to that of scientific rigor.

This would be a catastrophe, as we see in the various states implementing "teach the controversy" or other laws to introduce creationism into the science class. What's so maddening about these attempts, beyond being successful here and there, is these same religious zealots'd scream bloody murder if someone dared utter Darwin's name inside their church.

There should be no "melding" between any theology and science, except for that theology which comports to scientific rigor.

Ever see a beaker full of experiment in a church? And for that reason we shouldn't see bibles entering labs.

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.

It'd symbolize wholesale capitulation to woo, that's what it'd symbolize.

[TheJackelantern]

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.

Probably losing it big time? Umm no.. And I come from a strong religious background and used to play the same dishonest games she's playing here.. People that are entirely disingenuous in a debate never actually win the debate btw. When she can actually engage in honest discourse, there might actually be a debate worth having. Unfortunately her arguments contain pretty much all conversation enders.

And I was very specific of what we are 100 percent certain of... This doesn't mean you get to assume I am generalizing.. Example is the Earth orbiting the Sun.., yes we are 100 percent certain it is. And yes, science can establish certainty in regards to many things to which includes what we have discussed here today. When it becomes an end of a debate is when people by intention ignore the evidence just so they can hold on to their fallacies, and so they can engages in dishonest debate. Like I said, most of theists I've seen argue on this forum can't seem to engage in any sort of honest discourse.

It's almost all dogma, avoidance, deflection, twisting arguments, shifting in debate, goal post moving, appeals to ignorance, appeals to emotion, avoiding questions, non-direct answers, preaching, and asserting truth while believing they don't need or have to establish such assertions with the expectation that people should just believe them blindly. No meaningful discussion can come from dishonest individuals in a debate.

And let's be honest, they aren't here to actually debate and convince any of us.. We are not the target audience are we? The target audience is the name of the game, and that audience is those whom are undecided, or those whom are still contemplating the issues. This to which includes potentials whom come here and just read the forum.. I know how this game is played from both sides of the fence.. And it's funny how offended theists get when you use their own dishonest discourse and dogma against them to make a point of what they are doing. They suddenly become victims and start complaining and calling foul.. So when all else fails, place the victim card

[Baz]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 344#434344]
Probably losing it big time? Umm no.. And I come from a strong religious background and used to play the same dishonest games she's playing here.. People that are entirely disingenuous in a debate never actually win the debate btw. When she can actually engage in honest discourse, there might actually be a debate worth having. Unfortunately her arguments contain pretty much all conversation enders.

And I was very specific of what we are 100 percent certain of... This doesn't mean you get to assume I am generalizing.. Example is the Earth orbiting the Sun.., yes we are 100 percent certain it is. And yes, science can establish certainty in regards to many things to which includes what we have discussed here today. When it becomes an end of a debate is when people by intention ignore the evidence just so they can hold on to their fallacies, and so they can engages in dishonest debate. Like I said, most of theists I've seen argue on this forum can't seem to engage in any sort of honest discourse.
It's almost all dogma, avoidance, deflection, twisting arguments, shifting in debate, goal post moving, appeals to ignorance, appeals to emotion, avoiding questions, non-direct answers, preaching, and asserting truth while believing they don't need or have to establish such assertions with the expectation that people should just believe them blindly. No meaningful discussion can come from dishonest individuals in a debate.

And let's be honest, they aren't here to actually debate and convince any of us.. We are not the target audience are we? The target audience is the name of the game, and that audience is those whom are undecided, or those whom are still contemplating the issues. This to which includes potentials whom come here and just read the forum.. I know how this game is played from both sides of the fence.. And it's funny how offended theists get when you use their own dishonest discourse and dogma against them to make a point of what they are doing. They suddenly become victims and start complaining and calling foul.. So when all else fails, place the victim card

OK. When you said that you where 100% certain, you where talking about knowing everything that the human body is made of, not if the earth was in orbit around the sun!
Now if you where just pointing out that we know, or you know, the twenty or so elements that are part of our bodys. Fair enough, I apologise for making assumptions, but this and a lot of other comments in the context of the debate defiantly came over as an, I know everything that is to be known statement.

I would presume that you would agree that to find out something new you just have to look closer.



Again I find myself being faced with somebody asserting that theists are being dishonest with regard to their beliefs. And on a site like this too!

Why on earth would somebody lie about what they believe to be true on a more or less anonymous internet site?
Would you tell somebody you believe the sun orbits the earth?

I expect its hard to live with overpowering religions dominating large areas to the extent that they impose themselves on others but that doesnt make them dishonest any more than it makes them right.

Anyway with regard to this site and probably others (I havent looked) nobody is knocking at your door.

We all came of our own free will.
I came out of an interest in what others believe, how about you?

[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.

Moderator Comment


Just a reminder that unproductive one-liners like this are against the rules.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

I would like to apologise to anybody who thought this post was unproductive. Looking back at it, I suppose it was, but I have been such a fan of Crazees posts recently I just had to. I would invite you all to read some and not agree.



Now I hope Im not in trouble for posting on a moderators comment.

[Crazee]

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.

Probably losing it big time? Umm no.. And I come from a strong religious background and used to play the same dishonest games she's playing here.. People that are entirely disingenuous in a debate never actually win the debate btw. When she can actually engage in honest discourse, there might actually be a debate worth having. Unfortunately her arguments contain pretty much all conversation enders.

You come from a strong religious background. Growing up, Christian scripture didn't make sense to you. You asked your elders why there was good reason to follow Christianity over other belief structures. As you became more independent, your peers didn't manage to convince you that it was worth your while to stay as religious as they were.

So you did a complete flip. Now, you seek to expose anything that seems like religious/spiritual ideology as illogical assertions that disillusioned individuals made up to feel good about their lives.

This is all perfectly understandable; it's actually a relatively common pattern among our generation. They/you have experienced one extreme thought process and are now experiencing the other extreme. You used to have a set of what I like to call root assumptions about reality that consciously (and probably even more so subconsciously) dictated the majority of the actions you took. Now, your root assumptions about reality have changed, and they direct your actions differently. The key is to realize that we are all still making assumptions that can't be proven; these assumptions are what one's logic is based off.

You have a root assumption that reality is entirely material based; that we can know what our body is made of by using a microscope and/or conducting chemical experiments on blood, tissue, and bone (I'm probably missing something there) samples from our bodies. While holding this assumption, you have found ample proof for yourself that this is entirely true. You can't see a soul with a microscope, you can't conduct a chemical reaction with spirit, so they must not exist.

Others that hold an assumption that there is something non-physical which makes up the Self have found evidence to support their convictions too. Through experimentation with the dream world, meditation and prayer, out of body states, and an examination of the research done into the states of mind humans experience as they die, one can be pretty convinced that we are made up of more than the elements perceived with physical senses.

So how do we decide which assumptions to hold, and which not to That's the question, and I think the answer is highly personal to each individual since it is so deeply rooted in our subjective experiences with reality.

And let's be honest, they aren't here to actually debate and convince any of us.. We are not the target audience are we? The target audience is the name of the game, and that audience is those whom are undecided, or those whom are still contemplating the issues. This to which includes potentials whom come here and just read the forum.. I know how this game is played from both sides of the fence..

I don't think about the debates here the same way. I think anyone and everyone can change their views if they see good evidence or reason to do so. I don't specifically target those that haven't yet decided what to believe in because I don't believe that anyone's system of beliefs is a finished product, but rather is in a perpetual state of becoming and it could be becoming anything.

I know that the most effective change comes through any individual through the use of positive self-reflection. I aim for what I say to plant seeds of thought in others' minds, they can then choose to water those seeds or not. Disturbed soil is not receptive to new seeds, so I've also found that the most effective method for introducing new ideas is to demonstrate an equal respect in the beliefs of those you are speaking to, despite any previous assertions s/he made as to the unequivocal truth of there beliefs.

From Post 55:

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.

I don't doubt the peddlers of religious woo would love to have their notions elevated to that of scientific rigor.

This would be a catastrophe, as we see in the various states implementing "teach the controversy" or other laws to introduce creationism into the science class. What's so maddening about these attempts, beyond being successful here and there, is these same religious zealots'd scream bloody murder if someone dared utter Darwin's name inside their church.

Both fields of study are focused on figuring out what the universe is. One thing we can agree on is that both groups are present in the same universe, and are therefore ultimately trying to solve and answer the same questions. Would you say that nothing that a spiritual or religious group of people has come up with is worth taking any notice of, while everything with a supposed scientific basis is credible?

Both science and religion are developing fields of research. Look at all the things science used to believe but turned out to be wrong. Just about everything we've ever thought turned out to be wrong in one away or another whether it was science or theology. Theologians have done, and still do, incredible things for humanity. Take Martin Luther King for example. His work was focused in the biblical teachings of Christianity, and he was able to do incredible things for the race struggle. Gandhi's beliefs were based mostly in Hinduism, and his belief in the ability of humanity to cooperate no matter what their differences inspired activists all around the world, including Dr. King, to take up just causes for the benefit of humanity.

I'm sure I don't need to list the accomplishments of intellectual sciences to you. Technology has created advanced medicines to combat diseases, but human greed has made these medicines not available in many places where they are most needed. Great theological speakers have created communities that could've done great things, but frequently the leaders have instead chosen to embezzle the money invested in them.

My main point is that the spiritual sciences, and intellectual sciences, both have similar drawbacks and benefits in regards to how they can be used and abused. The reasons I believe there will be great things done when the two groups start working on joint projects is because such a large part of creativity is the connection of seemingly separate ideas to form new methods. One benefit that may arise through a dual awareness of the scientific possibilities, coupled with the moral responsibilities that spiritual/philosophical studies focus on in relation to the environment and other human beings, is a technological progression that doesn't bite the hand that feeds (the hand being planet earth).

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

My main point is that the spiritual sciences, and intellectual sciences, both have similar drawbacks and benefits in regards to how they can be used and abused. The reasons I believe there will be great things done when the two groups start working on joint projects is because such a large part of creativity is the connection of seemingly separate ideas to form new methods. One benefit that may arise through a dual awareness of the scientific possibilities, coupled with the moral responsibilities that spiritual/philosophical studies focus on in relation to the environment and other human beings, is a technological progression that doesn't bite the hand that feeds (the hand being planet earth).

Can you provide a hypothetical example of what you are talking about?

[Crazee]

My main point is that the spiritual sciences, and intellectual sciences, both have similar drawbacks and benefits in regards to how they can be used and abused. The reasons I believe there will be great things done when the two groups start working on joint projects is because such a large part of creativity is the connection of seemingly separate ideas to form new methods. One benefit that may arise through a dual awareness of the scientific possibilities, coupled with the moral responsibilities that spiritual/philosophical studies focus on in relation to the environment and other human beings, is a technological progression that doesn't bite the hand that feeds (the hand being planet earth).

Can you provide a hypothetical example of what you are talking about?

This isn't hypothetical, but I will give an example.

There is a model that the Dalai Lama recently used where, by the suggestion of documentary filmmakers, he invited prominent western thinkers from all different fields to his home in India to discuss solutions to the world's problems. At the convention, there were quantum physicists, theologians, priests, sociologists, etc.

The movie highlighted just how difficult it is for these different ideologies to come to a conclusion as to what is the best course of action for the world to take. No decision was made, but the experience was still invaluable to those that participated. Here is a good example of the sort of lessons many who attended learned, and were able to bring back to where they come from.

[Confused]

Moderator Intervention
Please take note to all participants in this thread, several posts have been published that have nothing to do with the OP but have everything to do with attacking the poster or the posters religious affiliation. If this thread cannot stay on topic with civil and relevant posts, it will be closed. Enough reports have been generated to justify such an action.
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.