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]

You are advocating that science is, in and of itself, a 'religion,' of sorts; substituting 'laws of nature' FOR deity--that is, deciding that if some aspect of nature can be described and understood by man, that this proves that no deity can possibly be involved.

Science doesn't substitute anything for anything.

Science itself does not, you are quite correct. The problem doesn't lie with science. The problem lies with those who USE science to 'prove' that God does not exist, by claiming that if a process can be described and understood by humans, then God didn't do anything...no God.

I'm afraid this is a complete misunderstanding. Science itself and most scientists have no interest in the concept of deities, the belief in deities, the existence of deities, anything at all to do with deities. From the point of view of science and most scientists deities don't exist as there is zero evidence for them. No meteorologist in the whole world became a meteorologist or practice as a meteorologist with the specific purpose of disproving the existence of Thor. It simply isn't an issue. That few sincerely believe in Thor anymore is not a result of meteorologists having "disproved" him, it is simply a side-effect of meteorology. (I'm being very categorical here to make the point. I can't of course rule out that some scientists who originally believed in God might have become so disillusioned that they became scientists to demonstrate why it's not necessary for Him to exist. Do you know of any?)

I know of several who became so enthralled by God's creations that they became scientists in order to find out how He did it and how everything works. That's the thing; science isn't about religion, and religion isn't about science. The two do not contradict each other--they only seem to. Those scientists who abandon religion because they see no scientific proof of God are missing the point. Those theists who abandon science because they are afraid of God are missing their good sense.

Consider: why would God create the universe, the planet...leave all this lovely stuff around just begging to be looked at, and not want us to LOOK at it?

Seems to me that good science is simply showing respect for God's creation. The more we learn, I think, the better He likes it.

But that's my personal opinion, of course. <snip to end, for answering later>

[Artie]

I know of several who became so enthralled by God's creations that they became scientists in order to find out how He did it and how everything works.

I don't doubt that. But the point was, do you know any previous believers who became scientists to specifically disprove God?

That's the thing; science isn't about religion, and religion isn't about science. The two do not contradict each other--they only seem to.

How can they not cancel each other out when one requires objective evidence and the other doesn't? The Christian faith completely depends on the non-existence of God. The second science finds Him the Christian Church collapses. "I believe in God I'm going to church to praise Him." "Whatever but shut up I'm listening He's on tv explaining the Unified Field Theory to Stephen Hawking!"

Consider: why would God create the universe, the planet...leave all this lovely stuff around just begging to be looked at, and not want us to LOOK at it?

He created up to a septillion stars and an untold number of planets for us to look at?

Seems to me that good science is simply showing respect for God's creation. The more we learn, I think, the better He likes it.

Well, I don't particularly enjoy over 3,500 species of mosquitoes, by many considered the most dangerous animal on the planet, but if He does...
(No offense intended.)

[TheJackelantern]

I know of several who became so enthralled by God's creations that they became scientists

This is an assumption that anything is "GODs" creation.. Please prove this dot (.) is God's creation. I can't even say I am creating it, or man has created it.. Why? Because I only press the key..The computer itself actually creates the dot. Hence, the energy does the work. However, in something like dealing with a snow flake, energy doesn't need a conscious button pusher to make snow flakes. Science tells us there isn't a magic man hand crafting snow flakes..

What evidence do you have that GOD created anything at all, much less everything.

[Baz]

Artia

Science can't "replace deity as an explanation of all things". Deity has never been, isn't and never will be an explanation of all things according to science. Science can't replace deity because there is no evidence that there is such a thing as deity to replace! You can't try to replace nothing with something! If you have two cups on a table you can replace one with the other but you can't replace one cup with another if there is no evidence that there's even another cup on the table! If you say that you "believe" there's another cup on the table that you want to replace with the one you have in your hand people will look at you funny. You can only try to provide evidence for that which no evidence existed before. Science can't help it if doing that should effect some people's belief in deities.

What we are talking about is peoples beliefs. Its peoples beliefs that are on the table to begin with.
None believers, approaching believers, with the premise that; the cup that they believe to be on the table is not there should expect to be looked at funny.

What is the benefit to science in removing the cup anyway?

[Baz]

Artie

Two people are standing in front of a table. On the table is one of the most amazing intricately designed and beautiful cups you could imagine. One person believes the cup was made by somebody. The other says it just appeared from nowhere.

Who would you believe?




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

[Artie]

Artie

Two people are standing in front of a table. On the table is one of the most amazing intricately designed and beautiful cups you could imagine. One person believes the cup was made by somebody. The other says it just appeared from nowhere.

Who would you believe?

I would believe that the cup was made by somebody, most likely one or more humans possibly with the use of one or more machines. I would not believe the religious person who says a deity magically made it appear from nowhere.

[Baz]

Artie

Two people are standing in front of a table. On the table is one of the most amazing intricately designed and beautiful cups you could imagine. One person believes the cup was made by somebody. The other says it just appeared from nowhere.

Who would you believe?

I would believe that the cup was made by somebody, most likely one or more humans possibly with the use of one or more machines. I would not believe the religious person who says a deity magically made it appear from nowhere.

Nice reply.

I like the way you accidentally missed my analogy with creation.
To be honest it was only bate. (and probably bad form)

[Artie]

Artie
Two people are standing in front of a table. On the table is one of the most amazing intricately designed and beautiful cups you could imagine. One person believes the cup was made by somebody. The other says it just appeared from nowhere.
Who would you believe?

I would believe that the cup was made by somebody, most likely one or more humans possibly with the use of one or more machines. I would not believe the religious person who says a deity magically made it appear from nowhere.

Nice reply.
I like the way you accidentally missed my analogy with creation.

Actually the answer I gave was the only logical and reasonable answer I could give. That a deity caused the cup to appear from nowhere appears as unlikely to me that a deity caused the universe to appear from nowhere.

To be honest it was only bate. (and probably bad form)

I thought it was cute...