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]

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?

If you are responding to just that sentence, can I chime in?

Here's the way it breaks down:

"I think that the explanations behind realities that don't seem to be based on physical laws...." Hmmn. If we consider that 'don't seem to be based upon physical laws" refers back to 'explanations," then that sentence could be rewritten this way:

I think that people who explain reality in ways that do not take physical laws into account need to discover more about the physical laws of the universe.

If that phrase, "that don't seem to be based on physical laws' refers back to the word 'realities,' then the sentence would be written this way:

"If we don't have explanations for realities that don't seem to be based upon physical laws, then we need to discover more about the physical laws of the universe."

Now you could be referring to something other than the quote you included. If so, you should have included the appropriate quote. This one doesn't come remotely close to implying what you are inferring. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Artie]

Now you could be referring to something other than the quote you included. If so, you should have included the appropriate quote. This one doesn't come remotely close to implying what you are inferring. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Quite right. Bad choice of line to quote. My comment which he answered was "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?" I wasn't sure what his answer actually meant so I tried to paraphrase using my own analogy wanting to illustrate that when we actually have scientific knowledge of something it would be illogical to go back looking for supernatural explanations.

[dianaiad]

Now you could be referring to something other than the quote you included. If so, you should have included the appropriate quote. This one doesn't come remotely close to implying what you are inferring. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Quite right. Bad choice of line to quote. My comment which he answered was "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?" I wasn't sure what his answer actually meant so I tried to paraphrase using my own analogy wanting to illustrate that when we actually have scientific knowledge of something it would be illogical to go back looking for supernatural explanations.

Why would it be?

Of course, I come from a rather different position here, but it seems to me that 'supernatural' is a crummy word, anyway.

What can be MORE 'natural' than the creator Who invented everything? WHY, in order to be God, must he break all the laws by which He created things to work in order to do anything?

It seems to me, in all honesty, that this is a supremely silly requirement. Just because we humans can understand and describe the process by which something happens doesn't mean that God did NOT 'do it.' That's akin to claiming that, just because I can bake a cherry pie from scratch, it means that my mother, who taught me how, could never have baked one herself.

Perhaps I'm strange, but I've never been able to figure that one out, myself--why we insist that God break all His laws in order to do anything. Seems to me that if He really was responsible for the "laws of nature' being what they are, then they are probably the best way to accomplish whatever it is that needs accomplishing. Why mess with them...just to prove to some annoying kid that He can?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Now you could be referring to something other than the quote you included. If so, you should have included the appropriate quote. This one doesn't come remotely close to implying what you are inferring. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Quite right. Bad choice of line to quote. My comment which he answered was "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?" I wasn't sure what his answer actually meant so I tried to paraphrase using my own analogy wanting to illustrate that when we actually have scientific knowledge of something it would be illogical to go back looking for supernatural explanations.

Why would it be?

Of course, I come from a rather different position here, but it seems to me that 'supernatural' is a crummy word, anyway.

What can be MORE 'natural' than the creator Who invented everything? WHY, in order to be God, must he break all the laws by which He created things to work in order to do anything?

It seems to me, in all honesty, that this is a supremely silly requirement. Just because we humans can understand and describe the process by which something happens doesn't mean that God did NOT 'do it.' That's akin to claiming that, just because I can bake a cherry pie from scratch, it means that my mother, who taught me how, could never have baked one herself.

Perhaps I'm strange, but I've never been able to figure that one out, myself--why we insist that God break all His laws in order to do anything. Seems to me that if He really was responsible for the "laws of nature' being what they are, then they are probably the best way to accomplish whatever it is that needs accomplishing. Why mess with them...just to prove to some annoying kid that He can?

The reason for the miracles in the Gospel stories is that they are suspensions of natural law for the purpose of establishing the authority of Jesus. If they have natural explanations in the sense of being explainable by science even if it were God 'pulling the strings" then there is no extraordinary authority being demonstrated. And reasons for believing the rest of the message go away.

In a slightly different vein, I am reminded of some of the more exotic proposals for 'scientifically' explaining miraculous Biblical occurrences while preserving the literal appearances. I recall one elaborate explanation of how the Sea of Galilee might have unexcpectdly frozen over allowing Jesus to walk on it. Either call it just a story or accept it as a miracle. But that kind of thing is just silly.

[Artie]

Just because we humans can understand and describe the process by which something happens doesn't mean that God did NOT 'do it.'

In other words "Just because we humans can understand and describe the process by which thunder is generated doesn't mean that Thor did NOT 'do it.'? Or are NOT doing it?

[dianaiad]

Now you could be referring to something other than the quote you included. If so, you should have included the appropriate quote. This one doesn't come remotely close to implying what you are inferring. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Quite right. Bad choice of line to quote. My comment which he answered was "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?" I wasn't sure what his answer actually meant so I tried to paraphrase using my own analogy wanting to illustrate that when we actually have scientific knowledge of something it would be illogical to go back looking for supernatural explanations.

Why would it be?

Of course, I come from a rather different position here, but it seems to me that 'supernatural' is a crummy word, anyway.

What can be MORE 'natural' than the creator Who invented everything? WHY, in order to be God, must he break all the laws by which He created things to work in order to do anything?

It seems to me, in all honesty, that this is a supremely silly requirement. Just because we humans can understand and describe the process by which something happens doesn't mean that God did NOT 'do it.' That's akin to claiming that, just because I can bake a cherry pie from scratch, it means that my mother, who taught me how, could never have baked one herself.

Perhaps I'm strange, but I've never been able to figure that one out, myself--why we insist that God break all His laws in order to do anything. Seems to me that if He really was responsible for the "laws of nature' being what they are, then they are probably the best way to accomplish whatever it is that needs accomplishing. Why mess with them...just to prove to some annoying kid that He can?

The reason for the miracles in the Gospel stories is that they are suspensions of natural law for the purpose of establishing the authority of Jesus. If they have natural explanations in the sense of being explainable by science even if it were God 'pulling the strings" then there is no extraordinary authority being demonstrated. And reasons for believing the rest of the message go away.

In a slightly different vein, I am reminded of some of the more exotic proposals for 'scientifically' explaining miraculous Biblical occurrences while preserving the literal appearances. I recall one elaborate explanation of how the Sea of Galilee might have unexcpectdly frozen over allowing Jesus to walk on it. Either call it just a story or accept it as a miracle. But that kind of thing is just silly.

Seems to me that, if miracles were for the purpose you claim, then that purpose is accomplished just as well by doing something nobody on the planet AT THE TIME could duplicate or seem to duplicate as it is by doing something entirely contrary to laws of physics that nobody at the time knew existed anyway.

But then, again, I come from a faith tradition that tells us that one of the things we are supposed to is learn how God did it, so that we can, eventually, 'do it' too.

For us it's not a case of "we don't know how, and it seems to fly in the face of what we do understand, therefore we must not ask questions...." or the atheist view of "we don't know how, and it seems to fly in the face of what we do understand, therefore it didn't happen."

For us it's "well, it happened....I wonder how He did it?"

And then we go look.

[Crazee]

"If we don't have explanations for realities that don't seem to be based upon physical laws, then we need to discover more about the physical laws of the universe."

This is what I was meaning to say, thanks for the rephrasing diana.

[dianaiad]

Just because we humans can understand and describe the process by which something happens doesn't mean that God did NOT 'do it.'

In other words "Just because we humans can understand and describe the process by which thunder is generated doesn't mean that Thor did NOT 'do it.'? Or are NOT doing it?

As far as I'm aware, "Thor" was a singular deity, so they are, indeed, 'not doing it.'

However, Thor (and Zeus, Nan Sapwe, Namarrkun,Malungu, Tupa, Brontes , Adad, Lei Gong or a host of others) were reputed to have 'made thunder (and the lightning that came with it) through very specific and local means. None of them were considered to be the Creator God Who made the entire universe and the laws by which everybody lives. Indeed, most of 'em were rather limited to laws by which THEY had to operate, invented by someone else. Or SomeOne else.

So, if one can describe thunder and lightning as being caused by a means directly opposed to the methods by which the god under discussion is claimed to have made it, then I do suppose that this means that Thor didn't do it.

However, it doesn't mean that the Creator of the Universe, the One who invented all the laws by which such things as thunder/lightning operate, didn't do it.

Please don't confuse the limited view of a Zeus with a universe creator. Even the folks who believed in Zeus know that he didn't do that, y'know. Thor didn't, either.

[Artie]

"If we don't have explanations for realities that don't seem to be based upon physical laws, then we need to discover more about the physical laws of the universe."

Got it. Then we are on the same page. It's not logical having the physical laws of the universe and then believe in or look for something that breaks them.

[Artie]

However, it doesn't mean that the Creator of the Universe, the One who invented all the laws by which such things as thunder/lightning operate, didn't do it.

Please don't confuse the limited view of a Zeus with a universe creator. Even the folks who believed in Zeus know that he didn't do that, y'know. Thor didn't, either.

I don't see any principal difference in believing that a god created thunder and that a god created the universe. Both ascribes the creation of something to a deity and both have perfectly good (if not yet fully understood) natural explanations. The same principle applies: Ascribing a supernatural explanation for something, making a deity responsible for something. Why do that?