Some vs Others

[cwes99_03]

Why the need throughout the scientific community to deny the existence of any possibility of a supernatural being? This is a discussion for those people who feel there is a need to deny the existence of supernatural (spirit) beings, and any others who have an honest opinion on why there might be a need to do so.

 

I have thoughts, but figure they will be expressed by others who respond.

 

Note: 1) This is not a discussion of why some people of a particular theology feel the need to deny another's theology (or philosophy).

 

2) If your answer is I am an atheist, then please respond with how your beliefs as an atheist require you to portray any thought of a deity as absurd. Remembering the original question, that as an atheist you deny the existence of the supernatural. If you are an atheist but do not deny the possibility of a supernatural being, then please hold your responses.

 

3) If you are of a particular theology please refrain from responding to certain posts that you will undoubtedly find innaccurate or failing to consider some points. Some initial input is necessary before that phase of the discussion should take place.

[InfiniteNow]

Hi cwes,

 

I see you've laid out some initial parameters for the discussion, which can help it stay focussed on point. I appreciate that, so thank you. I am looking for one point of clarification before everyone engages in the discussion.

 

Do you see this as a one way conversation, whereby your premise that science denies religion takes precedence, or would you be willing to discuss also the reciprocity involved where religion often tries to deny science?

 

Making sure everyone understands how the stage is set, that's all. ;)

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[cwes99_03]

My reply. The initial discussion that I expect would do the first, but in some ways touches on the second. If your answer is that (to paraphrase) "religion often tries to deny a scientific theory (or fact) and thus in kind I try to deny the existence of a deity." Then you have answered part one. Perhaps in a bit after more input has been received we can touch on that answer more in depth, perhaps even create a poll or something based on this thread.

 

I do not however want this to turn into a he said she said argument over things like evolution, that has and will continue to be discussed elsewhere.

[Southtown]

WELCOME BACK CWES! :cup: How's it feel to be resurrected? ;)

 

My thoughts: science is a method. Theories and hypotheses must be validated. And no one knows how to test a god hypothesis, that I know of.

[InfiniteNow]

If your answer is that (to paraphrase) "religion often tries to deny a scientific theory (or fact) and thus in kind I try to deny the existence of a deity."

Not really that response from the scientific community is "in kind," just that it works both ways. Pots calling kettles black more accurately captures the point I was making.

 

I do not however want this to turn into a he said she said argument over things like evolution...

Ditto. :cup:

[cwes99_03]

Not really that response from the scientific community is "in kind," just that it works both ways. Pots calling kettles black more accurately captures the point I was making.

 

I don't think that quite answers the original question. Why do some from the "denial of supernatural" side engage in such arguments? You say it is not simply because of a "return in kind" spirit, from your standpoint.

[InfiniteNow]

Why do some from the "denial of supernatural" side engage in such arguments?

Well, like all others, I can only speak for myself, and cannot offer any valid points if I begin speaking with the voice of some abstract entity...

 

My reason for, to use your terms, "denying the supernatural" is that I believe it will make our world a better place if more people step outside of, what I can only describe as, this self-reinforcing delusion. Others may think differently, but I am but one man among billions at that is my standpoint.

 

I can equally well argue the positives of a religious following as I can the negatives, but I find when I take all religions and people in aggregate, the negatives gain the upper hand.

[cwes99_03]

Okay, so far we have:

 

1) science demands material proof of existence thus anything that cannot be materially seen (such as some spirit creatures are described as non-corporeal) cannot exist.

 

2) religion is a delusion (don't be a hater here, this is an honest opinion and deserves respect for its honesty), and as a delusion while there may be some positive aspects to deluding people in such a way the negatives of deluding (lieing) to people in such a way overpower the positives.

[Southtown]

Okay, so far we have:

 

1) science demands material proof of existence thus anything that cannot be materially seen (such as some spirit creatures are described as non-corporeal) cannot exist.

"Cannot exist" is an overstatement; it is also theory to be verified.

 

2) religion is a delusion (don't be a hater here, this is an honest opinion and deserves respect for its honesty), and as a delusion while there may be some positive aspects to deluding people in such a way the negatives of deluding (lieing) to people in such a way overpower the positives.

Psychology. Ought to make for an interesting debate. =)

[Edella]

Okay, so far we have:

 

1) science demands material proof of existence thus anything that cannot be materially seen (such as some spirit creatures are described as non-corporeal) cannot exist.

I'm not sure where you got that one from cwes, Southtown didn't suggest it.

 

Why the need throughout the scientific community to deny the existence of any possibility of a supernatural being?

I honestly don't see this happening in the scientific community. Who denies any possibility of a supernatural being? The science community at large?

 

If you are an atheist but do not deny the possibility of a supernatural being, then please hold your responses.

Sorry.

[cwes99_03]

Southtown actually did suggest it, but he didn't take it through to the extent I took it. It is an argument that has been repeatedly made in one form or another by several prominent members of this site.

 

As to you not seeing this happening, I can only suggest you read a bit more of the total threads. In most of the threads with more than say 20 posts in the theology forum, at least one reference is made to the idea that religion is completely unscientific or that nothing supernatural exists and people of a religious nature are delusional. Turtle's thread here also points to it. The guy in the video is basically saying it. It is an argument that has been used against intelligent design repeatedly.

[C1ay]

Why the need throughout the scientific community to deny the existence of any possibility of a supernatural being?

 

Why is there any need to define a being as supernatural? Can there not be aspects of nature we simply do not understand? That some things are beyond our understanding is no reason to declare them beyond the scope of nature. IMO, nature encompasses everything, thus all phenomenon are natural. As for a deity, I've seen no evidence in my lifetime to suggest the existance of a deity so I see no reason to accept it as a viable explanation of anything unknown. The true scientist simply says, "we don't know" instead of inventing mythical beings to explain the unknown.

[cwes99_03]

So to paraphrase (correct me if I'm wrong) you deny the existence of any supernatural being (non-corporeal)

1) because you don't have any "evidence" to suggest the existence of such a thing,

2) because you think it unscientific to "invent" mythical beings to explain unknown phenomena.

 

As to the number one in this post, would you say that falls under:

1) science demands material proof of existence thus anything that cannot be materially seen (such as some spirit creatures are described as non-corporeal) cannot exist.

[Erasmus00]

I believe that it isn't that science denies "all possibility" of a supernatural being, but rather science cannot allow a supernatural being to be used as an explanation.

 

As soon as you allow "God did it" to be a scientific explanation, you stop all search for a natural explanation. Imagine if everytime a challenging question that we don't understand came along, the scientific response was "God did it." How far would science progress?

 

Its not that a God cannot exist, its that there is no place for God as a scientific explanation.

-Will

[C1ay]

As to the number one in this post, would you say that falls under:

1) science demands material proof of existence thus anything that cannot be materially seen (such as some spirit creatures are described as non-corporeal) cannot exist.

 

No. Science demands evidence. That does not mean that things we cannot or do not understand cannot exist. For all I know ghosts exist but if they do, then it's simply a phenomenon we don't understand. For me nature does not have to be limited to just things that we understand.

[Boerseun]

Quite simply, Science denies the existence of absolutely everything lacking proof.

 

You come up with a hypothesis, and Science will tell you "That's bunk. Bring the proof. Where's the beef?" And the hypothesis could be about absolutely anything. Religion and the belief in supernatural entities are nothing special, and don't get any special treatment scientifically speaking; but their proof don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. This is not to say that there won't be any hard proof tomorrow, or next week. But at this point in time, there are none, and science must discount religion until such time as some proof comes to the fore.

 

Think of it as Einstein's idea of matter warping space. It was an interesting concept, but no proof at all existed for it, prior to the actual observing of a star's light 'bending' around the sun during a solar eclipse in 1915.

 

Religion, and supernatural beings, find themselves in the same position as Relativity between 1906 and 1915. It's an interesting notion, but there ain't no proof. So religion shouldn't come crying to Science because they can't bring the goods, it's not the fault of Science. And to be consistent, and true to the method, Science simply cannot give Religion any special treatment and/or consideration, in exactly the same way that Science cannot give special treatment to any other hypothesis in the face of a lack of evidence.

 

Ask Infamous - he's a devout Christian, which I respect. But he understands the issue, and he's not crying about it - he does a marvellous job of keeping the two apart.

[InfiniteNow]

Very nice presentation, Boerseun. :doh: :)

 

 

Just clarify for any readers, though, the ecclipse was in 1919 (November)... :)