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?

[Baz]

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?

There may well be all sorts of good reasons to dislike all sorts of religions but throughout this thread and for that matter a lot of other threads some atheists appear to agree with this OP quote;

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.

But appear not to understand that somebody with a different point of view would often feel a similar moral obligation especially when many believe the stakes to be fare higher than atheists do.
Over time I think I have sort of gotten my head around the moral obligation of many religions to enlighten others and the more in your face approach of trying to convert, as well as the unreasonable efforts of some to compel. (They probably just do that for power or/and money)
I am however surprised by some atheists apparent desire to convert or even compel.
Why would you get upset about something you dont have any belief in?
I would have thought that in the absence of a beliefs relating to heaven and hell the only moral obligation would be to just inform others of what you believe to be the truth.

[dianaiad]

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.

I do. It's a fairly significant difference, actually.

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?

Why decide that, if you can describe the process by which something happens, assume then that t deity CANNOT be responsible for the laws which allow it?

Because that is what you are doing, and that is as illogical an argument as assuming that one should not try to describe that process because Thor might get angry with you.

[Thatguy]

I am however surprised by some atheists apparent desire to convert or even compel.
Why would you get upset about something you dont have any belief in?
I would have thought that in the absence of a beliefs relating to heaven and hell the only moral obligation would be to just inform others of what you believe to be the truth.

As I read the quote you are responding to, the obligation that some feel to spread the word isn't to bring converts to atheism but to espouse science and naturalism. I am not out to convert anyone to atheism, as far as i can tell. But I would like more people to look to natural explanations than to supernatural ones. Why? Knowledge is good for its own sake, for one. For another, the more people who look at the world in what I consider to be a rational manner, the more we are likely as a society, and that person is likely as an individual, to make sound decisions. I think we'd be better off if people were making their decisions based upon empirical facts rather than revealed, gnostic style revelations about how things are and how they ought to be.

I don't usually think about it as a moral obligation to favor rationality. It is one, I'd have to admit, but phrasing it that way, particularly this week, worries me a bit. This week, we've all seen a catholic holy man tell the world that birth control is immoral, so the priest should be willing to lay down his life to avoid a health care compromise that would fund birth control. Scary. If we feel we have a moral obligation to spread what we consider to be the truth, it's a short hop to feeling a moral obligation to prevent others from being ignorant. And, in part, I do feel that way. I favor mandatory education for children. That includes setting some standards of what must be taught. But there's a competing moral obligation to allow freedom of thought, even thought that I consider unwise. The latter is, to me, a greater moral obligation. Just because there may be a moral obligation does not mean we should be quick to consider them all causes to martyr ourselves for rather than compromising with those who feel differently.

So all things being equal, I feel some moral obligation to educate and to refute whet I consider to be misleading thought. Strategically, the best way to do so is to pick my battles, consider the sensibilities of my audience, and be civil. Usually. Alienating people isn't usually the best way to convince them I'm right. I don't think banning viewpoints I find irksome is ever the right way to go.

[dianaiad]

I am however surprised by some atheists apparent desire to convert or even compel.
Why would you get upset about something you dont have any belief in?
I would have thought that in the absence of a beliefs relating to heaven and hell the only moral obligation would be to just inform others of what you believe to be the truth.

As I read the quote you are responding to, the obligation that some feel to spread the word isn't to bring converts to atheism but to espouse science and naturalism. I am not out to convert anyone to atheism, as far as i can tell. But I would like more people to look to natural explanations than to supernatural ones. Why? Knowledge is good for its own sake, for one. For another, the more people who look at the world in what I consider to be a rational manner, the more we are likely as a society, and that person is likely as an individual, to make sound decisions. I think we'd be better off if people were making their decisions based upon empirical facts rather than revealed, gnostic style revelations about how things are and how they ought to be.

I don't usually think about it as a moral obligation to favor rationality. It is one, I'd have to admit, but phrasing it that way, particularly this week, worries me a bit. This week, we've all seen a catholic holy man tell the world that birth control is immoral, so the priest should be willing to lay down his life to avoid a health care compromise that would fund birth control.

Actually, he was opposed to a 'compromise' (which was no compromise, when you look at it) that would force HIM and other Catholics to PAY for birth control for other people, when they are fundamentally opposed to it.

He's right.

Think about it; how would you feel if you knew your money, by mandate, was used...very much against your will and beliefs...to force schools to teach religion in the classroom?

Wait.

Weren't we just fighting that one? Didn't y'all win that one? Wasn't everybody more than a bit UPSET that the government was forcing you to pay for stuff you didn't like and didn't believe in?


Same thing.

Scary.

No.

What's scary is this idea that it's perfectly OK to force someone to pay for stuff they don't believe in...as long as you believe in it. If that's wrong when theists are doing it, it's just as wrong when atheists are.

Now me...I have no problem with birth control. None. I think it should be available at very low cost to all who need it. I don't mind if the government uses my money to support it...

But I don't want 'em to fund abortions. I honestly believe that abortion means taking human life. I don't want any part of it--and I SURE don't want to be forced to FUND it.

Why should I have to?

Because YOU believe in it?

If that's so, why can't I force you to let the government fund forcing teachers to fund studies in the Book of Mormon, or make laws saying that teachers cannot drink coffee on campus?

What's the difference?

[Thatguy]

He's right.

Think about it; how would you feel if you knew your money, by mandate, was used...very much against your will and beliefs...to force schools to teach religion in the classroom?

Wait.

Weren't we just fighting that one? Didn't y'all win that one? Wasn't everybody more than a bit UPSET that the government was forcing you to pay for stuff you didn't like and didn't believe in?


Same thing.

Scary.

No.

What's scary is this idea that it's perfectly OK to force someone to pay for stuff they don't believe in...as long as you believe in it. If that's wrong when theists are doing it, it's just as wrong when atheists are.

Now me...I have no problem with birth control. None. I think it should be available at very low cost to all who need it. I don't mind if the government uses my money to support it...

But I don't want 'em to fund abortions. I honestly believe that abortion means taking human life. I don't want any part of it--and I SURE don't want to be forced to FUND it.

Why should I have to?

Because YOU believe in it?

If that's so, why can't I force you to let the government fund forcing teachers to fund studies in the Book of Mormon, or make laws saying that teachers cannot drink coffee on campus?

What's the difference?

I am forced, by political compromise and the realities of living in a society with governmental action, to pay for many things I deeply morally oppose. I pay for wars. I give corporate welfare. I pay for the torture of people I don't think know anything we don't already know. I pay to prosecute people I think are innocent for crimes I don't believe should be crimes. My taxes, fees, and fines do this all the time. I am not going to martyr myself over it. I understand that the church isn't used to it, it pays no taxes. But the rest of us do. It is feigned outrage to suddenly consider this process an attack on religion.

If the people using the insurance are, in fact, opposed to birth control then the church officials have nothing to worry about. None of their insureds will use the option. But, of course, the individuals involved will use birth control because their moral codes, their consciences, condone it. In fact, many Catholic institutions already cover birth control in their insurance.

The difference between this healthcare example and the government impositions of religion that you are giving as examples is the First Amendment. the government may not promote a faith or even faith in general. The government should make decisions for secular reasons, not religious ones. Your examples would be examples of the government acting for religious reasons and thus acting improperly.

The health care law is for secular reasons relating to health. It isn't, therefore, banned by the Constitution. The secular reasons may offend some people's moral or religious views. This is often the case. But we don't carve out exceptions to every law saying "Except insofar as someone disagrees with this rule for philosophical or religious reasons." That wouldn't work too well in reality.

[TheJackelantern]

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?

because she believes in "Magic" apparently. :/ To her, if there is no magic, it didn't happen. That's basically what we are hearing here. Reality is so unbelievably real that it must be magic that done it.. :/ Right? ...err..yeah!

What can be MORE 'natural' than the creator Who invented everything?

How do you invent "everything"?... How do you invent existence (reality) ??? .. How do you invent consciousness?? How do you invent Math if you are to be greater than zero? How do you invent knowledge and information without requiring it to even know yourself even exists?.. How do you invent dark, or Light when there can only ever be one or the other to start?... How do you invent the senses so you can sense and observe? .. Just curious how you supposed to make an argument to suggest a conscious entity invents everything when it self can not exist without cause...

What can be more natural? Umm everything being an emergent property of existence itself (Nature itself).. That might just be a more natural explanation than a magic man.. :/

I tell you what Daiamond, if you can please explain exactly how one creates reality itself (existence), information, knowledge, consciousness, and literally everything from a position of requiring none of those, or requiring anything at all to exist without forming a self-refutation... I might just consider your argument.

[Crazee]

I am however surprised by some atheists apparent desire to convert or even compel.
Why would you get upset about something you dont have any belief in?
I would have thought that in the absence of a beliefs relating to heaven and hell the only moral obligation would be to just inform others of what you believe to be the truth.

As I read the quote you are responding to, the obligation that some feel to spread the word isn't to bring converts to atheism but to espouse science and naturalism. I am not out to convert anyone to atheism, as far as i can tell. But I would like more people to look to natural explanations than to supernatural ones. Why? Knowledge is good for its own sake, for one. For another, the more people who look at the world in what I consider to be a rational manner, the more we are likely as a society, and that person is likely as an individual, to make sound decisions. I think we'd be better off if people were making their decisions based upon empirical facts rather than revealed, gnostic style revelations about how things are and how they ought to be.

Well, some people do try to convert others into atheism as aggressively as those in religious organizations. He can't generalize that all atheists are of the evangelical subset, and you can't generalize that all who consider themselves atheist are merely trying to teach science and naturalism.

So all things being equal, I feel some moral obligation to educate and to refute whet I consider to be misleading thought. Strategically, the best way to do so is to pick my battles, consider the sensibilities of my audience, and be civil. Usually. Alienating people isn't usually the best way to convince them I'm right. I don't think banning viewpoints I find irksome is ever the right way to go.

We are going to get along very well here . Well said, but I don't think he's saying anything about banning viewpoints, if that's what you're implying.

[TheJackelantern]

Well, some people do try to convert others into atheism as aggressively as those in religious organizations. He can't generalize that all atheists are of the evangelical subset, and you can't generalize that all who consider themselves atheist are merely trying to teach science and naturalism.

Especially on a debating forum.. Nobody here cares if you convert to Atheism ... I would find it funny if theists come here to a debating forum and then try to pull the "you're trying to convert me" card. Though many theists come here to try and convert Atheists by preaching.. Most Atheists just reject your position and address many of theists dishonest arguments.. Though I agree that there are some out there that actually attempt to. :/

[Artie]

Why decide that, if you can describe the process by which something happens, assume then that t deity CANNOT be responsible for the laws which allow it?

Because to say that even though Thor doesn't actually cause thunder with his hammer he is somewhere behind the scenes undetectable by any measuring device known to man and is responsible for the physical laws that produces thunder would render Thor redundant. We must simply consider thunder to be a perfectly natural phenomenon until such time that Thor actually appears in the sky swinging his hammer causing thunder. Then science could begin studying him to find out exactly what or who he is.

[dianaiad]

He's right.

Think about it; how would you feel if you knew your money, by mandate, was used...very much against your will and beliefs...to force schools to teach religion in the classroom?

Wait.

Weren't we just fighting that one? Didn't y'all win that one? Wasn't everybody more than a bit UPSET that the government was forcing you to pay for stuff you didn't like and didn't believe in?


Same thing.

Scary.

No.

What's scary is this idea that it's perfectly OK to force someone to pay for stuff they don't believe in...as long as you believe in it. If that's wrong when theists are doing it, it's just as wrong when atheists are.

Now me...I have no problem with birth control. None. I think it should be available at very low cost to all who need it. I don't mind if the government uses my money to support it...

But I don't want 'em to fund abortions. I honestly believe that abortion means taking human life. I don't want any part of it--and I SURE don't want to be forced to FUND it.

Why should I have to?

Because YOU believe in it?

If that's so, why can't I force you to let the government fund forcing teachers to fund studies in the Book of Mormon, or make laws saying that teachers cannot drink coffee on campus?

What's the difference?

I am forced, by political compromise and the realities of living in a society with governmental action, to pay for many things I deeply morally oppose. I pay for wars. I give corporate welfare. I pay for the torture of people I don't think know anything we don't already know. I pay to prosecute people I think are innocent for crimes I don't believe should be crimes. My taxes, fees, and fines do this all the time. I am not going to martyr myself over it. I understand that the church isn't used to it, it pays no taxes. But the rest of us do. It is feigned outrage to suddenly consider this process an attack on religion.

OK....Hmn...

Suppose an Orthodox Jewish parent sends her kid to school with a pastrami sandwich and juice, and the school lunch police decides that it's not up to FDA standards. They send the kid to the cafeteria, where he is offered a mac and cheese casserole (with ham), and other things, none of 'em Kosher.....and suppose that the parents are sent the bill for the lunch, even if the kid won't touch it and goes hungry.

Or...suppose a medical group run entirely by Jehovah's Witnesses that specializes in the sort of medical care that does not require transfusions or the use of blood products is forced, by the government, to allow a Red Cross blood-mobile in their parking lot, and to make sure their employees donate.

Either that, or pay all the fees required for that 'bloodmobile' to go elsewhere.

Suppose that you own a children's book store, and are told by the government that it doesn't matter that you are running a CHILDREN'S book store, it's a book store, so you have to offer Cormac McCarthy, Sylvia Plath, Flannery O'Connor....and oh, yeah, you have to put "Blood Meridian" next to "The Pokey Little Puppy." Oh, and the cost of all those books that the parents are going to scream at you over comes out of YOUR pocket.

(....and, by the way, I love Flannery O'Connor, so don't even try to go there. Sylvia Plath? Not so much. She writes like Theophilus Marziels...and what Cormac McCarthy did to Huckleberry Finn is just wrong. Just sayin'.)

Or how about this one?

A Catholic hospital, owned and run by the Catholic church, staffed by Catholic nuns and medical personnel, is told that they must not only offer contraception (which violates their religious beliefs BIG time) but that they have to PAY for it.

Now, I do hope that you can see a problem developing here?

It's not about ALL of us paying taxes, some of which go where we would prefer they did not go. It's about the government forcing their views on religion. It is a direct and egregious violation of the first amendment---and if the situation were that YOU were being forced to pay for your child to be educated in a religion you didn't believe in, you would be the first in line to object. As you should be.


The problem with freedom is this: in order to be free yourself, you must protect the rights of others to be free as well, even if that means that they are free to do those things you would not do, or believe things you don't believe. If you don't protect them now, then who will protect you later?

If the people using the insurance are, in fact, opposed to birth control then the church officials have nothing to worry about. None of their insureds will use the option. But, of course, the individuals involved will use birth control because their moral codes, their consciences, condone it. In fact, many Catholic institutions already cover birth control in their insurance.

The difference between this healthcare example and the government impositions of religion that you are giving as examples is the First Amendment. the government may not promote a faith or even faith in general. The government should make decisions for secular reasons, not religious ones. Your examples would be examples of the government acting for religious reasons and thus acting improperly.

The health care law is for secular reasons relating to health. It isn't, therefore, banned by the Constitution. The secular reasons may offend some people's moral or religious views. This is often the case. But we don't carve out exceptions to every law saying "Except insofar as someone disagrees with this rule for philosophical or religious reasons." That wouldn't work too well in reality.

....and the Catholic priest you are talking about was doing his objecting before Obama came up with the compromise....which is, actually, no real compromise, when you think about it. The church is STILL being expected to pay for contraception, after all, since it is paying the premiums.

Up until lately, we have all been able to choose to go with an insurance company that provides (or doesn't provide) the services we want and need. If we didn't want to pay for contraception, we would simply choose a company that didn't offer that as part of the package.

But the Catholic church no longer has that option, does it?