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?

[ZeroII]

Like many other inter-religious arguments that support one's faith and disses another's, the overlooked problem surrounding this thread is that therre really is no conflict between the roots of religious belief and science. The very fact humanity exists in the known Universe is supernatural, miraculous or magical enough as it is. And many in recent history have seen the two as being in harmony instead of in conflict. The Baha'i Faith and other 'thinking' religions claim as much as well. The idea of why science is science is due to the findings must support some practical and universally operable set of facts all can and must agree upon. Such as the laws of Physics that cannot be broken or escaped from that spells out how much in the universe interacts from the sub-atomic level. And the fact the ancient scriptures don't seem to jive with modern science is now that humanity has evolved far enough along so that former knowledge and beliefs are no longer operable or relevant, such a first heaven structure of primitively diverse and conflicting beliefs will pass away as a result. Science is Truth because like mathematics, it universally has to apply or work for everyone on earth. 2 + 2 doesn't equal either 4 or 5 because you happen to be a Muslim, Christian or of no faith at all. And just as the Bible stipulates, what will rule in the future is the Truth itself. The basis of Science, and why it always applies everywhere. And established religions will pass away and become meanigless or faithless.

[Oldfarmhouse]

Only when the scientist reaches far beyond his own knowledge and expertise to explain things because he believes that everything must have a scientific explanation and nothing else is allowable.

That is, when 'science' becomes as 'religious' as religion.

So according to your argument, everything imaginable is "allowable"?

Where the heck do you get that from ANYTHING I wrote?

It's generally used as an argument

Generalizing with me can get one into trouble. Again. where did you get that from anything I wrote?

... to suggest that believing in natural causes is somehow a irrational religious belief, that in bias, doesn't allow for supernatural cause (magic).. So according to such arguments, anything ought to be allowable to the point of making everything ignorantly pointless. So existing non-existent pixie fairies created existence so they themselves can exist, and everything else. Hence, this too should be "allowable" based on the reasoning and logic of the comment made. Right?

In other words, there's no middle ground with you. Either everything is allowable, which of course is ludicrous, or NOTHING is..which, of course, is perfectly reasonable? That is, you realize, exactly the point of view I was talking about; the attitude that SINCE there is no God and there CANNOT be anything ultimately unexplainable by science BECAUSE there is no God. It is as religious, as wholly irrational a position to take as the one that states that science explains nothing.

As it happens, I'm a theist. I believe in God. I believe He created the universe....AND I believe that, ultimately, science will be able to describe all the processes by which He did it. That's what science is...not a substitute for God, but a description of how He did it.

In other words, Jack, if this is your attitude, that it's either/or and you are going for the 'Science is everything because there is no deity,' then you are just as ...religious...as fanatic a believer in your own world view as any brain-washed cultist selling off everything he owns and waiting on a hilltop for the world to end.

I can respect...in fact, do respect...atheists who don't believe in deity because they have not as yet seen a reason to believe in one. For some reason, I don't get the impression that you are one of those.

Speaking for myself -- no, I don't think that everything will ever be explained by science. I don't think that everything will be explained, period. I'm ok with that. As far as I can tell with the available existing evidence humans, every single one of them, will be gone from the universe. I wont say that I know when -- I don't know, nor does anyone else. At the point when we are all gone our collective knowledge will be miniscule compared to that which is undiscovered. That does not bother me.

All I'm saying is that "I don't know" is a completely reasonable answer. "God did it" is not an explanation for anything. It has nothing to do with "allowable" I have to allow other people to believe whatever they want to. Beliefs take place within the grey matter inside your skull. I have no access to it, I have no control over it. For you -- it's allowable.

If you want me to believe it -- then you have to provide something better than -- because it says "derp-a-derp" in this here book. Or -- because I said so. Or -- because that is what I believe to be true. None of these things are convincing.

If there are other life forms in the universe that have the capability of contemplating the nature of things that is on the level of, or beyond that of, humans on Earth is something that I don't know, nor does anyone else. If there are, maybe they have better seats in the grand-cosmic scheme of things and have much better and more complete information. I'd bet my bottom dollar they don't believe in Jesus.

[dianaiad]

Speaking for myself -- no, I don't think that everything will ever be explained by science. I don't think that everything will be explained, period. I'm ok with that. As far as I can tell with the available existing evidence humans, every single one of them, will be gone from the universe. I wont say that I know when -- I don't know, nor does anyone else. At the point when we are all gone our collective knowledge will be miniscule compared to that which is undiscovered. That does not bother me.

All I'm saying is that "I don't know" is a completely reasonable answer. "God did it" is not an explanation for anything. It has nothing to do with "allowable" I have to allow other people to believe whatever they want to. Beliefs take place within the grey matter inside your skull. I have no access to it, I have no control over it. For you -- it's allowable.

(grin) Only temporarily. My point is that for me, it's 'yes, God did it...now let's go find out HOW." For me, understanding the processes by which something works, or even being able to repeat those processes, does not mean that God did NOT 'do it,' nor does the idea that 'Godidit" mean that we can't learn how. I'm of the opinion that we're supposed to find out how.

It's part of the point of BEING here.

If you want me to believe it -- then you have to provide something better than -- because it says "derp-a-derp" in this here book. Or -- because I said so. Or -- because that is what I believe to be true. None of these things are convincing.

Up to you. I've been a missionary. I'm not doing that here in this forum. I can tell you why *I* believe something, but whether you accept that? (shrug) Not my problem, to be blunt. This isn't the place to prove that my beliefs are true--just the place to discuss them and to defend/explain what they ARE, so that critics are criticizing real stuff, not strawmen. There's a difference.

If there are other life forms in the universe that have the capability of contemplating the nature of things that is on the level of, or beyond that of, humans on Earth is something that I don't know, nor does anyone else.

No, we don't know...but the odds are pretty good, and my particular faith says that there absolutely are. It's in our scriptures and everything.

If there are, maybe they have better seats in the grand-cosmic scheme of things and have much better and more complete information. I'd bet my bottom dollar they don't believe in Jesus.

Well, if we are RIGHT about God and the way He (and Jesus) created the universe, then yeah...they do. They certainly won't have the same stories about Him...why should they? But the basic idea? We think so. (shrug) For us, though, it's like knowing that platypusses live in Australia. Nice, but not exactly pertinent to what we do, think, or behave like in the middle of, say, Kansas. It's something for the scientists...a sort of 'if you find someone, yay....if you don't, well, keep looking. In the meantime, mow the lawn of the widow down the street before she gets a stroke trying to start the lawnmower.

We do not, of course, know what these others may believe. Be nice to talk to 'em...but I haven't seen any indication that any of 'em are talking yet. Unless something has happened with SETI and the ATA I don't know about?

[Crazee]

The very fact humanity exists in the known Universe is supernatural, miraculous or magical enough as it is.

Agreed

Science is Truth because like mathematics, it universally has to apply or work for everyone on earth

The laws of physics change, and numbers aren't perfectly reliable, I'll try to explain why I think so.

The idea behind a number is that when it is ascribed to a quantity of things, that means there is a certain amount of those things that are exactly the same. If I have four buckets, those four buckets still are not exactly the same down to the molecule, there will always be perceivable differences. Therefore, I do not have four of the same buckets, I have four different buckets.

In algebra, we can only add together variables that are the same. Numbers are variables that indicate sameness between two or more things. But we are never actually using the exact same things, everything is it's own variable. If I add X + Y, I don't get 2, I get X + Y, because I can't add together different variables. If I add bucketA + bucketB + bucketC + bucketD (my four different buckets), it will equal bucketA + bucketB + bucketC + bucketD.

2 + 2 doesn't equal either 4 or 5 because you happen to be a Muslim, Christian or of no faith at all.

Imagine I have 2 rocks, and then I find another 2 rocks. 2 + 2 can only equal 4. But now I break one of the rocks into 2 pieces. Now I have 5 rocks, but all the same material is still present. It could be said that this shows how 2 + 2 can be made to equal 5.

The idea of why science is science is due to the findings must support some practical and universally operable set of facts all can and must agree upon. Such as the laws of Physics that cannot be broken or escaped from that spells out how much in the universe interacts from the sub-atomic level.

As for physics, I agree that the current model accounts for much of the natural order of things in the universe; but just as Galileo improved on Ptolemy, Newton improved on Galileo, and Einstein improved on Newton, it should be realized that our current understanding of physics can and will be changed/improved in the future. The laws of physics are not static, they are in a constant state of discovery.

For example, our physics right now revolves around the four fundamental forces. Weak force, strong force, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force. Gravitational force is the force that governs how large bodies of matter interact with each other such as stars, planets, black holes, supernovae, etc.

According to this law, scientists hypothesized that the universe must be contracting due to gravity pulling everything closer together. When it was decided that the universe was expanding, as opposed to contracting, scientists hypothesized that the universe's expansion must be decelerating and the initial energy from the Big Bang was the reason objects were still moving away from each other. Within the last year, it has been concluded that the universe is not only expanding, but its expansion is accelerating.

Last I checked, science cannot understand how this is possible. We see here how our physics could still use some working on. It is theorized that there is a 5th fundamental force that accounts for the energy put out by dark matter, this force would circumvent gravity on an even larger scale (maybe between galaxies?) and be the cause behind our accelerating-expanding universe.

Also, quick tip, it's easier for people to digest your posts if you break them up into paragraphs. You wrote a lot of interesting stuff there, but it was a little difficult to get through such a thick block of text.

[ZeroII]

Crazee-

The difference is you are talking about the particulars of tangible matter and forces in the Universe. I'm making reference to how they are measured, the math itself which universally applies and never changes. The same method of measure has to be employed or there is no way to determine which bucket is which.

So it comes back to the fact that 2 + 2 can never equal 5 in any account that's unversally usable or valued. Otherwise why even bother with a thing called science if it's all subjective and only based upon what one happens to believe alone. Likewise as far as Physics goes, the atomic/molecular makeup of H2O doesn't change because anyone happens to perceive it differently. They may see different aspects of the same system of truths regarding water. But it's all the same H2O regardless. And it's just a matter of Physics still evolving to discover the more finite questions still lurking that haven't been understood yet. But there still is some set of laws or governing set of factors that explains how things work and why?

But I suppose mutual agreement can be a boring thing, much like mathematics. And you may respect me, but you refuse to dance with me.

[Crazee]

Crazee-

The difference is you are talking about the particulars of tangible matter and forces in the Universe. I'm making reference to how they are measured, the math itself which universally applies and never changes. The same method of measure has to be employed or there is no way to determine which bucket is which.

But my point is that because no two things in the universe are exactly the same, we can never rely 100% on mathematical measurements to be correct. I definitely think math and numbers are useful, but I don't think they can figure out the ultimate questions of existence unaided.

And it's just a matter of Physics still evolving to discover the more finite questions still lurking that haven't been understood yet. But there still is some set of laws or governing set of factors that explains how things work and why?

But I suppose mutual agreement can be a boring thing, much like mathematics. And you may respect me, but you refuse to dance with me.

I think we have a different dance. Mainly, you say that there are a finite amount of questions, I disagree. I think there are an infinite amount of questions, and we have infinite time to figure them out. Since I believe the questions are infinite, I believe the laws of physics will evolve for an infinite amount of time.

[ZeroII]

Crazee-

The difference is you are talking about the particulars of tangible matter and forces in the Universe. I'm making reference to how they are measured, the math itself which universally applies and never changes. The same method of measure has to be employed or there is no way to determine which bucket is which.

But my point is that because no two things in the universe are exactly the same, we can never rely 100% on mathematical measurements to be correct. I definitely think math and numbers are useful, but I don't think they can figure out the ultimate questions of existence unaided.

And it's just a matter of Physics still evolving to discover the more finite questions still lurking that haven't been understood yet. But there still is some set of laws or governing set of factors that explains how things work and why?

But I suppose mutual agreement can be a boring thing, much like mathematics. And you may respect me, but you refuse to dance with me.

I think we have a different dance. Mainly, you say that there are a finite amount of questions, I disagree. I think there are an infinite amount of questions, and we have infinite time to figure them out. Since I believe the questions are infinite, I believe the laws of physics will evolve for an infinite amount of time.

I think you seem to be concluding that I'm taking some position that's inordinately opposed to your's or something. If I seem to be disagreeing that no two things in the universe are the same, I digress. The plain fact is that any mathematic equation for it's own sake cannot change the value it represents. And this has nothing to do with no two elements or factors in the universe being quite the same. Or would you say that the number, "2" itself might not equal an actual, "2" in a different set of circumstances? If you would say yes, I'd have to question your ideas of what mathematics does or represents by function of it's purpose.
My dance comment was an abstract joke. And no, I don't really think there are a finite amount of questions at all. Interesting how people can jump to contextual conclusions from what another has said. I suppose I'm guilty of the same thing sometimes. You're saying much the same thing I am thinking anyway. There's always more to discover out there, as there should be.

[TheJackelantern]

Imagine I have 2 rocks, and then I find another 2 rocks. 2 + 2 can only equal 4. But now I break one of the rocks into 2 pieces. Now I have 5 rocks, but all the same material is still present. It could be said that this shows how 2 + 2 can be made to equal 5.

Umm no.. You are trying to add variables to an equation to which listed no such variables. This is called changing the equation to which has no actual value to the original equation being argued for.. You can break up existence into a trillion rooms, but the over all is 1 room that contains and literally is all other rooms.. This is equally applicable to anything existent as existence is the one entity of all other entities, objects, or things... So for someone to say GOD done it, it would only make comprehensible sense if you were a Pantheist since existence governs all that exists, and produces all that which exists, and literally is all that exists. That includes the conscious mind.. Existence is every conscious mind.. So actual math here would be 1+X = 1 in reality, and if we go by your mathematical logic..

So for people to say "GOD DONE IT" is as equivalent as saying "Man done it", or an "Ant Done it"... Hence, theists here are making pretty bad arguments that are basically meaningless.

Science is Truth because like mathematics, it universally has to apply or work for everyone on earth

Mathematics is universal to everything. It's because you can only have a Quantized existence regardless if you understand it or not..

Example:

Theists beg us to believe their GOD "positively" exists and has a existential value greater than zero..

Hence, to even be existent, there must be quantitative value. If it doesn't exist, it's a non-entity, or nothing more than an object of the imagination... And it's clear that existence doesn't require a conscious mind to exist as it's actually the other way around. And this fact alone collapses any conscious entity as being applicable to being a GOD.. Theists are just people that worship power and control. And Pantheists worship the highest order of power and control to which is literally that of all power and control. AKA existence itself. The God concept is moot, and nothing more than a fantasy opinion that may as well be worshiping the dust bunny on my desk as the GOD of sneezes..

[TommyFizz]

The very fact humanity exists in the known Universe is supernatural, miraculous or magical enough as it is.

This is a very good statement. Existence itself should be cause enough for one to think long and hard about the possibility of the supernatural.

To assume or even lean towards "Eternal universal/physical existence backward", is literally one of the most obsurd theories I have ever heard. I mean, stop and think about that for a second, we are not talking about a LONG TIME...we are talking about "Eternity"...A concept that none of us can even comprehend fully. Simplified all the way down it comes to this - if one is an Atheist they must believe:

1) Physical Existence goes eternally backward. (Obsurd to me)

2) Physical Existence came from nothing. (Even more obsurd to me and definitely a scientific contradiction)

3) Physical Existence came from a non-physical, non-supernatural, scientific cause. (This statement makes no sense what-so-ever)

On top of that, why is it so hard to believe in the supernatural? I mean, out of all the NDE's in the past, are 100% of all those experiences written off because it's subjective and circumstantial? So it means all those people are crazy and jaded and didn't realize that it was all a hallucination and thats the end of that discussion? All unexplainable supernatural events in the past are not to be taken seriously? Why? Because it's just too far fetched and there is a scientific explanation, but right now, "We don't know" so we should leave it at that and draw no conclusion, unless of course it's a scientific theory and not a supernatural one?

As for the skeptic view on things, if you are an Atheist, do you apply the same mental angle to all other aspects of your life? If you do, I would assume that you don't believe a word that comes out of anyones mouth unless of course, there is enough evidence to draw the conclusion that what they are saying is true. If that's not the case, than why is there an exception to the rule outside the belief in the supernatural.

[ZeroII]

Imagine I have 2 rocks, and then I find another 2 rocks. 2 + 2 can only equal 4. But now I break one of the rocks into 2 pieces. Now I have 5 rocks, but all the same material is still present. It could be said that this shows how 2 + 2 can be made to equal 5.

Umm no.. You are trying to add variables to an equation to which listed no such variables. This is called changing the equation to which has no actual value to the original equation being argued for.. You can break up existence into a trillion rooms, but the over all is 1 room that contains all other rooms.. This is equally applicable to anything existent as existence is the one entity of all other entities, objects, or things... To say GOD done it would only make comprehensible sense if you were a Pantheist since existence governs all that exists, and produces all that which exists. That includes the conscious mind.. Existence is every conscious mind.. So actual math here would be 1+X = 1 in reality, and if we go by your mathematical logic..

So for people to say "GOD DONE IT" is as equivalent as saying "Man done it", or an "Ant Done it"... Hence, theists here are making pretty bad arguments that are basically meaningless.

?- Maybe I missed the 5 Oclock News. The mathematically assumed error in the trick question quote is quite evident without much applied effort. And the actual math here (?) would only be 1+X = 1 if 'X' = 0. Are you saying conscious existence somehow reflects some mathematical equation, or?