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?

[Mr.Badham]

I believe it is bad to think a scientist is right and a Christian is wrong based simply on the fact that the scientist uses "science." The ignorant, unlearned person believes the scientist simply because he puts a rock in a radiometric device and pulls the rock out and says "THIS ROCK IS 75 MILLION YEARS OLD" and the ignoramus believes it simply because that is what the machine has been programmed to do by a "scientist."

It's not right to agree with a scientist simply because he's a scientist, but it's not right to disagree with him simply because he is a scientist. It's not about who programmed the radiometric device, it's about how and why it was programmed that way. You shouldn't agree or disagree with anyone because of who they are. You should only agree or disagree with them based on why they say what they say, or why they do what they do.

Show me the programming to be faulty and I won't believe the age of the rock is 75 million years old. The difference being of course, the consequences of not believing a scientist.

[dianaiad]

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?

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.

But then, I'm a little on the weird side; I don't happen to think that, just because we can understand and describe the processes of something, it means that God did NOT 'do it,' nor that God has to 'do' things by means of processes that break the very laws of the universe He created.

I come from a religious tradition that claims that, ultimately, everything that God has done, we will be able to do...and if we can do it, it can be described scientifically.

That's what science IS; the description of processes.

[TheJackelantern]

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"? Like non-existing pixie fairies killed said GOD and took over from a place of non-existence to control the realm of existence! .. I do find it interesting at how theists try to turn and paint science into a magical religion to which it is not. Science does not even address supernatural because there is nothing there to address. And every time science does get involved in supernatural cases like ghosts, people claiming to have special powers ect... It's always finds nothing to address, or charlatans trying to make money on such subjects..

Religion intentionally uses appeals to emotion and ignorance as a means of debate and survival. And the laws of physics have to follow the laws of existence itself. So the argument of supernatural is just utter nonsense. And at best, that would be like comparing human intelligence to something like an organism without a brain, or an organism that does not have the mental capacity of a human being. You may as well call us GOD's in comparison to something else. Perhaps there are 2D beings worshiping us right now... After all, we can color and draw their world. Thus we must be supernatural beings!

BTW, worshiping anything like a GOD, or bowing to something in such a manner is just plain stupid. It's a means to teach people how worthless they ought to think they are in light of something else. Nothing like teaching Stockholm syndrome and psychologically programmed obedience to the Psycho Deity with a severe case of NPD. :/ The ants in my ant farm better love me or I will burn them alive with a magnifying glass. /sarcasm

[dianaiad]

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?

[robnixxo]

If something can be quantified it's not supernatural.

If you don't believe in gravity, you cannot suddenly fly. Science is just how things work. It's not a matter of personal opinion.

[David 2.0]

You should explain things with science when you can.

Outside of that, it is bad.
(Or speculation.)

Plus you don't really explain things away with science.
Everything stays put.

Just defined better.

[Crazee]

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?

I was thinking the same thing actually. I don't see where that sort of claim is implied in what she wrote, but if so then I'm curious to hear why.

[TheJackelantern]

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 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?

[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 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?

I'm with you on this, Jackel. Within the confines of natural explanations there is a clear line in which the only allowable explanations are those which are testable, falsifiable, repeatable, and natural. If one is to allow God as an explanation then why not Bigfoot? Why not dragons? Why not anything one can imagine? Where, specifically is the delineation?

[dianaiad]

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.