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]

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.

Wrong... But nice try..

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.

Ever ask why they are here? ..

They/you have experienced one extreme thought process and are now experiencing the other extreme.

Incorrect. I didn't just go through one extreme to the other.. That was a long process of going through a lot of in between.. I had become an agnostic long before I ever became an atheist. Science is just icing on the cake that came long after that cake was baked. I became a Pantheist before I became an Atheist. And that's when I realized how moot and irrelevant the entire GOD concept actually is... It's just a concept of opinion and tile of opinion..It's whatever you want it to be. Abrahamic theists worship power and control of a narcasisitc deity, others see cows as divine, some see existence itself is the ultimate entity of everything as identical to GOD. So either all things are GODs, can be considered as GODS, or there are no such thing as GODS. It left me asking a simple question:

What is a GOD if not worshiped or believed as such?

Well.... that's a pretty interesting question isn't it? So how about those dust bunnies on my desk? They are GOD's of sneeze!.. Right? The point is here is that even of someone's idea of GOD existed, it would be entirely meaningless to me giving that I know it's just an opinion with an emotional attachment and nothing more. After all, the Pantheist GOD does exist... I don't even deny them that. So what's the point again? Should I bow to existence and pray to it? Should a gravel at it's foundation and beg for salvation? .. Seriously, where does that logically go? And one of the largest factors of my leaving religion behind dealt with reading on how brainwashing works.

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.

Assumptions rely on lack of any sort of evidence. Assumption are faith based...Assumption is the core of faith.. I however do not rest my position on "assumptions". And I often question my own assumptions to which I don't have evidence to base them on.. My certainty is dependent on the evidence, logic, reason, and rational thought. And I only need to point to existence itself to debunk the notion of a GOD..It's that simple actually...Hence, science had little to do with my becoming an Atheist..

Now, your root assumptions about reality have changed, and they direct your actions differently.

This is called me getting an education, and actually stopping and doing some critical thinking... It's not hard to dismiss self-refuting beliefs or ideologies either btw.... That's what makes much of it so easy to dismiss..

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.

Perhaps you can be more specific.. Like the assumption you can't repeat that posting without requiring information, a computer, internet access, or existence itself? Curious, is this an assumption or evidence based logic? .. But hey, feel free to elaborate..

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.

Your alternative is being made of nothing? .. Remember this self-refutation thing we went over above? Yes, I have ample proof that this is entirely true.... And yes you can see a soul with a microscope.. They are little atoms made of energy.. But hey, you can believe your soul is nothing, or believe nothing is the essence of the soul.. Fun stuff...

Others that hold an assumption that there is something non-physical which makes up the Self have found evidence to support their convictions too.

Then they should have no problems demonstrating their evidence... err wait.. immateriality, umm nothing to demonstrate.. Good chat! :/

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.

Kinda like how people born blind can't have visual dreams, or that people born death don't have that little voice in their head that sounds a lot like themselves.. And do tell us how you see in 3 dimensions in this supposed dream world, or color for that matter.... Yeah, it's not real light, it's magic light and the 3d dimensional world ...err wait.. How about feeling something without physically feeling it...oh damn.. umm... wait... And it comes to how far you are willing to backpedal in your arguments and move the goal post isn't it?

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.

Reality is an interesting word isn't it? .. Usually entails being more than nothing...

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.

Mine is a finished product based on logic, reason, actual evidence, and rationality. On this subject of course. This argument being subjective to what you are specifically talking about..

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.

That's great, so why are you on a debating forum then? I respect peoples beliefs to only the point where I not need seek to ban them, or kill them for it ect.. However, this doesn't mean I should respect their beliefs and pander to them.. We are on a debating forum and they subject their beliefs to criticism here. Playing the victim on a debating forum is dishonest, and there is no excuse for it.

[TheJackelantern]

people born [strike]death[/strike] deaf

Sorry, that was bugging me

[Crazee]

What is a GOD if not worshiped or believed as such?

Well.... that's a pretty interesting question isn't it? So how about those dust bunnies on my desk? They are GOD's of sneeze!.. Right? The point is here is that even of someone's idea of GOD existed, it would be entirely meaningless to me giving that I know it's just an opinion with an emotional attachment and nothing more. After all, the Pantheist GOD does exist... I don't even deny them that. So what's the point again? Should I bow to existence and pray to it? Should a gravel at it's foundation and beg for salvation? .. Seriously, where does that logically go? And one of the largest factors of my leaving religion behind dealt with reading on how brainwashing works.

Who wrote that question? I certainly didn't. You can't just throw in a string of quotes from me and among them put something that I didn't say. I can't find anyone that said that. If you want to answer a rhetorical question, don't pretend like someone else asked it.

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.

Your alternative is being made of nothing? .. Remember this self-refutation thing we went over above? Yes, I have ample proof that this is entirely true.... And yes you can see a soul with a microscope.. They are little atoms made of energy.. But hey, you can believe your soul is nothing, or believe nothing is the essence of the soul.. Fun stuff...

I haven't stated an alternative, you're making an assumption. I'm only saying it's possible there's a part of our Self that isn't necessarily material based.

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.

Mine is a finished product based on logic, reason, actual evidence, and rationality. On this subject of course. This argument being subjective to what you are specifically talking about..

What am I specifically talking about?

Keep in mind that the statement you've made here has been repeated countless times by countless intellectual geniuses. In time, it has always turned out that they didn't have everything perfectly right. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that keeping an open mind to the possibility of your beliefs on the topic being revised will keep you from looking silly if new evidence is found contrary to what you currently believe.

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.

That's great, so why are you on a debating forum then? I respect peoples beliefs to only the point where I not need seek to ban them, or kill them for it ect.. However, this doesn't mean I should respect their beliefs and pander to them.. We are on a debating forum and they subject their beliefs to criticism here. Playing the victim on a debating forum is dishonest, and there is no excuse for it.

I'm not saying to pander to them. Like I've told you in other debates, the most effective way to make someone take your words into consideration is to respectfully explain the reasons you believe their ideals don't hold water. If you imply or state outright that their current ideals are stupid ones to have, then they will more than likely shut out most of what you say. Criticism is fine, I'm happy to subject my beliefs to criticism, I will gladly explain the thought process that led me to believe what I do. Realize that there is a big difference between criticism as opposed to degradation of someone's beliefs.

[otseng]

Playing a game of ignorance in a chair isn't going to do that for you and have any sort of real value.

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

Moderator Final Warning

We have given you sufficient warnings regarding making personal comments. This serves as a final warning prior to being placed on probation. Please exert more care in what you say and do not make any statements on your perceived level of ignorance in others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Artie]

I'm only saying it's possible there's a part of our Self that isn't necessarily material based.

On what is this "part of our Self that isn't necessarily material based" actually based on and how do we go about measuring it and explain it within the laws of nature and physics?

[TheJackelantern]

sent private msg

[TheJackelantern]

Who wrote that question? I certainly didn't. You can't just throw in a string of quotes from me and among them put something that I didn't say. I can't find anyone that said that. If you want to answer a rhetorical question, don't pretend like someone else asked it.

That was a quoting myself and had nothing to do with you. It was to highlight a previous point I made.... What on Earth made you think I was quoting you??? It would be nice if you could address the quote's question though.

I haven't stated an alternative, you're making an assumption. I'm only saying it's possible there's a part of our Self that isn't necessarily material based.

If you are going to address my position as an assumption, it usually helps to address an alternative.. This problem we are addressing is that there is either nothing, or there is something.. Immaterial is the assumption of something made of nothing.. Saying that there is a part of self of nothing is a self-refutation.. It's the same context of saying a part of you doesn't exist but you believe it does just because you can take words and put them together and say it does.. I don't need to address self-refutations, they dismiss themselves.

What am I specifically talking about?

Keep in mind that the statement you've made here has been repeated countless times by countless intellectual geniuses. In time, it has always turned out that they didn't have everything perfectly right. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that keeping an open mind to the possibility of your beliefs on the topic being revised will keep you from looking silly if new evidence is found contrary to what you currently believe.

I've always been open to new evidence... But some things become self-evident to the point where new evidence isn't going to come along and change anything. And my belief system focuses on what is and not what I want it to be. That's the difference here..

I'm not saying to pander to them. Like I've told you in other debates, the most effective way to make someone take your words into consideration is to respectfully explain the reasons you believe their ideals don't hold water. If you imply or state outright that their current ideals are stupid ones to have, then they will more than likely shut out most of what you say. Criticism is fine, I'm happy to subject my beliefs to criticism, I will gladly explain the thought process that led me to believe what I do. Realize that there is a big difference between criticism as opposed to degradation of someone's beliefs.

The problem in dealing with this is that you can't change peoples minds regardless of what you say, or what your approach is... Hence, you can't make an alcoholic stop drinking, only they can do that. None of my arguments here a geared towards changing their minds. They have already made up their minds regardless of the evidence ect. Hence, they are picking and choosing what they want to believe in, and there is nothing I can do about this. So no, they are never the target audience.. I even may ask when was the last time you have seen someone convert their beliefs due to a discussion a forum?

opposed to degradation of someone's beliefs.

This is unfortunately a consequence of a debate when descending from the other sides position. Especially in dealing with theism vs atheism. Any view opposing the other sides points and positions is automatically a degradation of their positions :/ What position actually matters is which is actually relevant to reality.. Reality isn't going to bend to what people want to believe in at the end of the day. Hence, no matter how much flatearthers want to believe that the Earth is flat, reality isn't going to magically make Earth flat for them just because they can deny reality for the sake of their beliefs. And this is pretty much the type of conversation me and Daiamond had..

[Crazee]

I'm only saying it's possible there's a part of our Self that isn't necessarily material based.

On what is this "part of our Self that isn't necessarily material based" actually based on and how do we go about measuring it and explain it within the laws of nature and physics?

One will only come across most non-physical states if actively searching for them. But a certain state of existence that we all come across routinely, which is not based on physical laws, is the dream state.

Think about it, while a dream is occurring, it seem entirely real. While we are awake, the world around us seems entirely real. Who are we to say that the physical world around us is more real than the universe we experience while dreaming? It would be a universe that we can agree is not constrained by physical limitations.

I don't advocate the mindset of "Since material reality is indistinguishable from dreams, material reality must be an illusion that isn't really happening". I believe thinking this way creates excuses for many individuals to claim existence is something devoid of purpose and meaning. Instead, I say "The physical universe is equally realistic to us as the dream universe is. Therefore, dream perceptions and physical perceptions both have equal validity as forms of reality."

There have been scientific experiments done with lucid dreamers. I haven't read on them in detail but they are attempting to isolate what areas of our brain are activated when one is dreaming. I think our consciousness is made up of more than the chemicals in our brain. So ultimately, I don't think doing brain scans of sleeping people will do us much good, a new approach must be taken. As to what that new approach should be, I couldn't tell you yet. I think there has been some research as to the capabilities of the conscious dreamer, but I don't remember what the conclusions were. I should look into it again.

I think the explanations behind realities that don't seem to be based on physical laws, will require discovering more about the physical laws of the universe. In my humble opinion, it will require looking beyond the 'physical' laws of reality, and instead just search for 'laws' of reality. I believe that limiting ourselves to a physical explanation for everything will hold back humanity's psychological, as well as technological, progression. As to nature everything is nature, so we can easily satisfy ourselves that way by saying: it's a part of the natural order of the universe.

Who wrote that question? I certainly didn't. You can't just throw in a string of quotes from me and among them put something that I didn't say. I can't find anyone that said that. If you want to answer a rhetorical question, don't pretend like someone else asked it.

That was a quoting myself and had nothing to do with you. It was to highlight a previous point I made.... What on Earth made you think I was quoting you??? It would be nice if you could address the quote's question though.

I didn't think you were quoting me. My only qualm is that you had ten quotes from me, and one quote from you thrown in, and they all had the same label. To the outside observer it would seem that even when you were quoting yourself, it was a quote from me. I'm sorry that I got a little annoyed, but there would be less confusion if you labeled your quotes.

Restate the question to me and I'll answer it in my next post. I was just about done with this and realized I hadn't answered that yet.

I haven't stated an alternative, you're making an assumption. I'm only saying it's possible there's a part of our Self that isn't necessarily material based.

If you are going to address my position as an assumption, it usually helps to address an alternative.. This problem we are addressing is that there is either nothing, or there is something.. Immaterial is the assumption of something made of nothing.. Saying that there is a part of self of nothing is a self-refutation.. It's the same context of saying a part of you doesn't exist but you believe it does just because you can take words and put them together and say it does.. I don't need to address self-refutations, they dismiss themselves.

You're right, it would've been better if I had addressed an alternative, but my point was that you were making an assumption as to what my alternative was.

We each have a root assumption that is causing our discussion to go in circles. I see a possibility that reality could also be made of something not inherently made out of matter. Your assumption is that this isn't possible. I don't think it is necessary that you and I discuss this particular subject any longer since. Anyways, as you say, you don't need to address self-refutations lol. I'm glad we could exchange our views on this subject without too much frustration

What am I specifically talking about?

Keep in mind that the statement you've made here has been repeated countless times by countless intellectual geniuses. In time, it has always turned out that they didn't have everything perfectly right. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that keeping an open mind to the possibility of your beliefs on the topic being revised will keep you from looking silly if new evidence is found contrary to what you currently believe.

I've always been open to new evidence... But some things become self-evident to the point where new evidence isn't going to come along and change anything. And my belief system focuses on what is and not what I want it to be. That's the difference here..

Some aspects of reality seem self-evident, and while they seem this way to us, it's perfectly reasonable to agree with them. But it is never going to be good to be so sure of something that nothing could change our minds.

In fact, the only thing worth believing beyond a doubt, is that there is nothing worth believing beyond a doubt.
Recognize that saying? if not, here is how it is more commonly stated: The only thing that will never change, is that everything changes.

I'm not saying to pander to them. Like I've told you in other debates, the most effective way to make someone take your words into consideration is to respectfully explain the reasons you believe their ideals don't hold water. If you imply or state outright that their current ideals are stupid ones to have, then they will more than likely shut out most of what you say. Criticism is fine, I'm happy to subject my beliefs to criticism, I will gladly explain the thought process that led me to believe what I do. Realize that there is a big difference between criticism as opposed to degradation of someone's beliefs.

The problem in dealing with this is that you can't change peoples minds regardless of what you say, or what your approach is... Hence, you can't make an alcoholic stop drinking, only they can do that. None of my arguments here a geared towards changing their minds. They have already made up their minds regardless of the evidence ect. Hence, they are picking and choosing what they want to believe in, and there is nothing I can do about this. So no, they are never the target audience.. I even may ask when was the last time you have seen someone convert their beliefs due to a discussion a forum?

You can't force an alcoholic to stop drinking, but you can certainly point out a way for them to do so. If I had an alcoholic friend, I would help him find reliable programs and/or plans to help him try to quit. They would have to do the real work, but I could still aid them. Say a guest of mine needed to get from the park to the train station. I couldn't walk the road for him, but I could tell him which road to take, or print out a map for him to look at.

Why do you not gear arguments towards changing peoples' minds? Isn't that the whole point of debate? You say that there are others that watch that aren't decided yet, but I don't think there is a significantly larger portion of people watching that have changeable beliefs, versus people that post that have changeable beliefs.

And still, everyone's beliefs are changeable. Plenty of times on this forum and others I've encountered people that spoke real wisdom which I hadn't considered before. These people changed my beliefs. Therefore, through my own experience, I would say that people's beliefs can be changed through forum discussion.

What position actually matters is which is actually relevant to reality.. Reality isn't going to bend to what people want to believe in at the end of the day. Hence, no matter how much flatearthers want to believe that the Earth is flat, reality isn't going to magically make Earth flat for them just because they can deny reality for the sake of their beliefs. And this is pretty much the type of conversation me and Daiamond had..

Ever heard of the placebo effect? I'm sure you have. Anyways, the idea is that we can give a substance to a patient that (chemically) shouldn't bring about any positive benefits to their condition. But we tell them that it will. Studies have been done to show that patients who are assured of a recovery, despite being given an ineffective medication, will heal faster than those with the same condition who are not given anything. Could this be seen as an example where simple belief can effect personal reality?

as opposed to degradation of someone's beliefs.

This is unfortunately a consequence of a debate when descending from the other sides position. Especially in dealing with theism vs atheism. Any view opposing the other sides points and positions is automatically a degradation of their positions :/

And this is where I don't agree. I believe that it is not only possible, but highly important, to debate others without degrading their beliefs. The difference in listener's reactions is that degradation is ignored, while respectful criticism is considered. To me, degradation involves unnecessary ridicule of those that hold an opposing belief; Whereas respectful criticism is explaining to a friend an error you think s/he may have made in their thinking. My friend, I respectfully think you've made an error in your thinking.

[dianaiad]

This is unfortunately a consequence of a debate when descending from the other sides position. Especially in dealing with theism vs atheism. Any view opposing the other sides points and positions is automatically a degradation of their positions :/

No. It is simply a disagreement with them. Treating others with simple dignity, and respect--if not for their positions, at least for those holding them--is generally the best idea.

I have found, over my many years, that there are two very true things about debating positions: NOTHING cements an opinion like opposition to it, and nobody has ever changed his/her mind about his or her own beliefs because they have been sufficiently ridiculed.

For instance, take the way you work on this forum, with me and others. Your style of arguing has so completely disturbed me that I put you in my 'ignore' file. Not only does your style of argument and disrespect not change my mind, I have seen to it that your posts don't even get TO me to try. The only reason I'm responding to this one is because Crazee quoted you, and I wanted to respond to this one quote of yours.

If you truly believe that any opposition to someone else's POV is automatically a degradation of their positions (I.E., degradation of them personally) it no longer puzzles me why you feel free to take that to the limits allowed...and further.

But it's counterproductive. As in...doesn't work. People either respond in kind, at which time nobody is in any danger of changing their minds, or they turn you completely off (as I have) and if they don't see or hear you, they certainly aren't going to change their minds because of you, are they?

Just a thought. Back to the plonk file you go.

Diana, who is (as is most plainly indicated on the profile) FEMALE.

[Artie]

I think the explanations behind realities that don't seem to be based on physical laws, will require discovering more about the physical laws of the universe.

I don't know if I understand you correctly so I'll try to illustrate what I think you mean. First people believed in Thor the Thundergod as an explanation for thunder. Then when the science of meteorology explained thunder the belief in Thor dwindled. Are you saying that because we know a lot about meteorology instead of concentrating our efforts on learning more about meteorology we should now go looking for Thor again?