Some vs Others

[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]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

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]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

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

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.


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

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Very nice presentation, Boerseun.

Thank you, thank you very muuuuch...[/Elvis voice]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

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

Good catch! I stand corrected!

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by 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 1919.

Okay, so here I have pared down the posts, I believe, into two cover-all points.

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 because you don't have any "evidence" to suggest the existence of such a thing. Until such evidence can be proffered, science will continue to deny such existence.

2) Religion is a delusion, 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. One such negative is that it is unscientific to "invent" mythical beings to explain unknown phenomena.

First, as to point number 1. What evidence must be proffered to "prove" the existence of a supernatural being? How could one attempt such a feat?

As to point number 2. If religion is a delusion, then why are a majority of people in the world and a majority of scientists (including world renown scientists) claim to have faith in some sort of supernatural power? What positives do you see coming from such a delusion, and are there any religions that you are aware of that have more positives than negatives? Also, what proof do you put forth that any or all religions were inventions of man?

Also, with these two points, what do you see is a scientists job to do in the case of religion?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well said, Boerseun!