Science and the Supernatural

[Azeroffs]

I like to think most things we consider to be supernatural can be explained by science via psychology

religion is just a big black box used to explain the things we dont understand

basically like this

[Absurd]

Not to cooperate, keep in line, yes.

[Gilly]

8

Not to cooperate, keep in line, yes.

That's basically what I was saying

[silverchris9]

re: OP

I agree, to some extent.

Some scientists like to Ockham's Razor anything that is not explained by the current framework of science out of existence. But the whole point of Ockham's Razor is that it is a scientific heuristic, not a test of truth.

I think that a lot of people, probably more individuals in the general public than scientists themselves (but let's be honest, a lot of scientists too), tend to confuse scientific methodology with tests of truth. The fact that a scientific theory should not assume the existence of God, or the soul, or midi-chlorians does not in and of itself invalidate the possibility of a truth involving God, or the soul, or midi-chlorians. We just don't have the tools to understand these things yet.

And to your deeper point (rather than my spin on the point it looks like you're making), I agree that at some point, we will be able to gain a more thorough understanding of things that at this point seem supernatural. At the very least, it's a possibility.



Still, I think that there is something to the claim that there are areas that science, at least presently, is unable to explain, and so must remain agnostic about rather than assuming their nonexistence:

I was reading a great article once about how a guy was walking with his kid, who explained to him that science had proved once and for all that old, silly fantasies like faries never existed. And of course, the dad retorted that science has proven no such thing. Science *can't* prove or disprove the existence of fairies, God, the soul, alternate universes, or midi-chlorians, because these things are by definition supernatural, i.e., not obeying the laws of nature. Since science must take as its starting point the laws of nature as we currently understand them, supernatural things are excluded from scientific study by definition. However, "excluded from scientific study" and "contrary to the laws of nature" are not synonymous with "non-existent," whatever David Hume's ridiculous argument against miracles would have you believe.

(Although, to your point, "supernatural" = "not obeying the laws of nature" is a bit of a misnomer. In reality, "supernatural" = "not completely explainable using the laws of nature as we currently understand them." Things are magic until they're science, and they're science until they're magic.)

And so the proper position on such subjects is at the least agnosticism. Technically speaking, if you're a pure rationalist of the gung-ho Descartes streak (i.e., you refuse to believe anything that cannot be demonstrated with certainty by reason), the proper position towards everything is agnosticism. (Descartes had to prove the existence of the physical world via a proof that essentially says that God is true by definition, and the further assumption that a perfect--and therefore, necessarily existent--God wouldn't let us be deceived like that. But if you can do better than Descartes, be my guest.)



Overall, I like David Eagleman's take on it all. I was listening to an interview where he talked about how science establishes a zone of possibility, in which certain things can be ruled out as not possible given the facts as they stand, but which leaves open a wide space of possibility, especially when it comes to the afterlife and such things. He has a cool book called Sum that I really want to read that presents like forty different possible afterlives. He's like a quintessential alpha NT kind of scientist. I'm pretty sure he's ILE.

Can't people just please read some fucking history and realize that religion is just a big black box used to explain the things we dont understand and get people to cooperate?

One could use essentially the same semi-Freudian lines of reasoning that "prove" religion only existed to keep people in line, to "prove" that the only reason you hate religion is because you didn't get along with your dad or had a basic need towards individuation during adolescence. Anything can be Freudified to death, literally anything, just like any word can be read out of existence. Interpretation is a trap. When you start speculating on motive, you can reduce anything to whatever you want to reduce it to.

It's a lot smarter, I think, to take a nuanced and balanced view on things, including religion. So I think it's smart to recognize that yeah, a lot of the impetus for religion does come from a desire to explain things that, yes, science and the pseudo-science of Freud-style psychology go a long way towards explaining.

But at the same time, let's not pretend that this puts the question of religion to bed.

Even if you can prove conclusively that the only reason people have the general "love thy neighbor" sentiment is that "love thy neighbor" gives them a way to safeguard themselves from losing the object of their libido by generalizing the libido to include everyone, have you really proven that a person who genuinely loves his neighbor for no other reason than that the neighbor is a human being, is a worse person than one who is indifferent towards anyone that is not a close friend of family?

Similarly, even if you can prove conclusively that people believe in religion because they want a way to explain the unexplainable, does that really prove that religion is false, harmful, or "bad"? I don't think so.


And on a related note, the fact that religion has been used for the purposes of those in power, as noted by Machiavelli in Livy and elsewhere, does not make religion itself bad. The United States funded most of the original research that led to the electronic gadgets we use today because they thought the research in question would help us get better at killing people. Does that mean that the gadgets, or scientific research, are bad?

Also, common sense side note: EVERYTHING can be and has been used for the purposes of those in power. If anything, religion has proven pretty damn slippery for the uses of those in power, certainly more slippery, on average, than artists. Hasn't religion just as often been on the other side, against those in power? Like, I dunno, the entire history of Christianity from ~50AD when Saul was killing Christians to 313AD when Constantine flipped? You're not going to convince me that Christianity grew because of state support while Nero was having Christians burned.

Your early history loses to my early-er history. Deeper magic from before the dawn of time, yo. (Actually, the whole Christianity thing happened after the arguably mythical bits in Livy that Machiavelli was talking about. I just really wanted to make a C.S. Lewis joke.)

I've read Discourses on Livy too, and bully on Machiavelli for noticing that religion can be used for political purposes. While we're Freudifying everything, we should also mention that he had a political bone to pick with the church of Rome, and probably had some personal stake in reducing the function of religion to state support.

What I'm saying is, religion must be considered as a thing separate from any one outcome or any one possible motive, positive or negative. It's reductive, intellectually dishonest, and historically ignorant to reduce religion to either a) its negative uses by what Machiavelli might call "temporal" power, or b) the desire to explain away what we do not understand (or convince a group of people to take collective action). If nothing else, we can counter that by referencing a) the positive social actions taken by religious groups, b) the ability of religion to provide a framework for what we cannot understand (i.e., tragedy, death, etc.), and c) the MANY times in history in which religion has been the impetus for a group of people to break the status quo, like, I dunno, those people who decided to defy all the orders to stop following their religion or die, from everyone from the Emperor of Rome to the Communist Dictators of Russia. They're called martyrs, and just talk to the Catholic Church, they'll give you a list of zillions of 'em, like freakin' one for every day of the year. #highchurchjoke.

Summary: I'm not saying religion is perfect. I am saying it isn't just "a big black box." Nothing is just a big black box. (Yes, please do quote the preceding sentence and post a picture of a big black box).



Side note: just because mainstream Christianity in America has a decidedly conservative bent, doesn't mean Christianity, much less Jesus of Nazareth, had a conservative bent at all. Trust me, Jesus' message is comprehensive enough to offend left-wingers and right-wingers alike. (protip: read what he actually says about money).

[Begoner]

I think that a lot of people, probably more individuals in the general public than scientists themselves (but let's be honest, a lot of scientists too), tend to confuse scientific methodology with tests of truth. The fact that a scientific theory should not assume the existence of God, or the soul, or midi-chlorians does not in and of itself invalidate the possibility of a truth involving God, or the soul, or midi-chlorians. We just don't have the tools to understand these things yet.

There's a distinction to be made between the most parsimonious theories of natural phenomena (i.e., those theories that accord with Occam's Razor), more extravagant theories of natural phenomena, and non-falsifiable theories of natural phenomena. Theories in the second group (such as the existence of midi-chlorians), even if not scientifically accepted as true, are nonetheless scientific theories insofar as they predict specific things and can be shown to be false if those predictions do not hold. However, theories in the third group (such as the existence of a soul) are utterly unscientific; it is not that we lack the tools to understand them, but that they are irrational nonsense. If you aren't satisfied with Hume's ideas about this topic, try Wittgenstein's: "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent". If something exists outside the realm of science, it is meaningless to talk about it, as one cannot possibly have any knowledge of it.

[Oh, I see that you treated midi-chlorians as being supernatural later on; actually, they are observable organisms within the context of Star Wars, which is why I placed them in the second category.]

And on a related note, the fact that religion has been used for the purposes of those in power, as noted by Machiavelli in Livy and elsewhere, does not make religion itself bad.

Machiavelli himself certainly didn't argue that religion was bad; he said it was the main unifying force holding together the Roman Republic. Indeed, he depicted religion in a very positive light (namely, as a tool with which unruly masses could be "civilized"). Others have called religion the "opium of the masses"; however, I see no reason to take this as simple invective. Religion oftentimes has a positive effect on the individual level because it allows people to believe comforting falsehoods rather than confront a bleak reality. Plus, unlike drugs, religiosity does not have any physically degrading side effects.

Side note: just because mainstream Christianity in America has a decidedly conservative bent, doesn't mean Christianity, much less Jesus of Nazareth, had a conservative bent at all. Trust me, Jesus' message is comprehensive enough to offend left-wingers and right-wingers alike. (protip: read what he actually says about money).

Christianity, like many religions, was initially successful because it appealed to the disenfranchised and marginalized elements of society (e.g., the poor, women, etc.). Although Christianity is not progressive by modern-day standards (and it isn't, not even in its purest form), it did represent a significant, positive departure from the mores extant in turn-of-the-millennium Rome. However, like most political organizations that begin as insurrectionary groups, Christianity modified its tone as it gained power, becoming increasingly oppressive. The same is true of left-wing revolutionary organizations, for example, although the time frame in which they gain power and exploit their power is generally shorter. However, when Christianity became institutionalized, it ceased to be progressive.

[silverchris9]

There's a distinction to be made between the most parsimonious theories of natural phenomena (i.e., those theories that accord with Occam's Razor), more extravagant theories of natural phenomena, and non-falsifiable theories of natural phenomena. Theories in the second group (such as the existence of midi-chlorians), even if not scientifically accepted as true, are nonetheless scientific theories insofar as they predict specific things and can be shown to be false if those predictions do not hold. However, theories in the third group (such as the existence of a soul) are utterly unscientific; it is not that we lack the tools to understand them, but that they are irrational nonsense. If you aren't satisfied with Hume's ideas about this topic, try Wittgenstein's: "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent". If something exists outside the realm of science, it is meaningless to talk about it, as one cannot possibly have any knowledge of it.

[Oh, I see that you treated midi-chlorians as being supernatural later on; actually, they are observable organisms within the context of Star Wars, which is why I placed them in the second category.]

I thought whereof one cannot speak was about the Holocaust? But I guess it was just applied to the Holocaust by Alan Bennet in The History Boys, lol.

Anyway, to assume that which cannot be proven by scientific means is "irrational nonsense" is to make the very error I am attempting to dissuade people from. It is basically assuming that science is the only road to truth.

This is of course false, because science relies upon assumptions that cannot be proven by science (existence of time, existence of space, causality, repeatability and reality of phenomena, or at least a certain relationship between the world-as-it-is-observed and the world-as-it-is). Therefore, if the conclusions of science are true, their must be extrascientific means of arriving at truth. This snake is eating its tail (most do).

So, to your alteration of "whereof one cannot speak" to "whereof one cannot speak with purely scientific proof, thereof one must be silent," I reply, "Well then, we'd all better shut up, about everything, for a good long time."

Machiavelli himself certainly didn't argue that religion was bad; he said it was the main unifying force holding together the Roman Republic. Indeed, he depicted religion in a very positive light (namely, as a tool with which unruly masses could be "civilized"). Others have called religion the "opium of the masses"; however, I see no reason to take this as simple invective. Religion oftentimes has a positive effect on the individual level because it allows people to believe comforting falsehoods rather than confront a bleak reality. Plus, unlike drugs, religiosity does not have any physically degrading side effects.

True. Even with the argument that religion exists to hold people together, it takes a very idealistic and non-pragmatic mindset to say unequivocally that religion is bad and should be avoided. A very idealistic "I believe in the truth if it kills me," rather Romantic, Oedipan approach to life. Which is admirable, but not all that different from religious faith after all.

Christianity, like many religions, was initially successful because it appealed to the disenfranchised and marginalized elements of society (e.g., the poor, women, etc.). Although Christianity is not progressive by modern-day standards (and it isn't, not even in its purest form), it did represent a significant, positive departure from the mores extant in turn-of-the-millennium Rome. However, like most political organizations that begin as insurrectionary groups, Christianity modified its tone as it gained power, becoming increasingly oppressive. The same is true of left-wing revolutionary organizations, for example, although the time frame in which they gain power and exploit their power is generally shorter. However, when Christianity became institutionalized, it ceased to be progressive.

I strongly disagree. The thing about Christianity is that it is a text-based religion. As such, one can separate Christianity from Christianity-as-it-is-practiced. Perhaps I should have made it clear that when I spoke of "Jesus' message," I was attempting to make an appeal to Christianity rather than Christianity-as-it-is-practiced.

No matter how many rich and powerful Christians there are, there are still verses in the Bible that ought to make those rich and powerful Christians (myself included, although I'm not personally rich or powerful right now) uncomfortable, like the bits about "making my father's house a house of merchandise," and "blessed are the meek," and "blessed are you when you are persecuted for righteousness' sake," and "it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven."

And even if the interpretation of those verses in most churches has changed, the verses themselves have changed very little (accounting for translation and the possibility of scribal errors in the period between the original manuscripts and the earliest manuscripts available to scholars today). I think they're central enough and pointed enough to give those in power pause. You can logic it away, but it should at least give you a moment of pause when you say "love thy neighbor" in one breath, and "don't provide your neighbor with healthcare" in the next.

Of course, I'm not discounting the idea that there is a difference between individual charity and government-mandated and -managed charity---I'm just saying it should give one pause, and that the text could support a different application to the political situation than the one that currently holds the most sway in American political discourse.

I am claiming for Christianity a bit of an "inherently revolutionary" character, what with the be happy when you're persecuted, blessed are the meek, rich people are gonna have trouble getting into heaven business (but then of course, right around the corner is the bit where the Roman centurion's son is healed because of his faith, and the Roman centurion probably ain't hurtin' for money). I think it is paradoxical that Christianity can simultaneously be a religion of such stark emphasis on tradition (especially in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic faiths), and a religion of such a strong anti-authoritarian bent. But I think the real lesson there is that, if the claims of Christianity are true, and the way Christ lives is the best way to live, then any society is going to have some disagreements with Jesus, at least until we have a perfect society.


EDIT: And, even if you do speak of Christianity-as-it-is-practiced, there are people who believe in and practice Christianity from a very liberal, even revolutionary POV, politically speaking. (Even if they don't believe in violet revolution.) Are they somehow less Christian because they (almost necessarily) do not have a central voice in American political and media discourse?

[Begoner]

I thought whereof one cannot speak was about the Holocaust? But I guess it was just applied to the Holocaust by Alan Bennet in The History Boys, lol.

Actually, it's kind of funny: Wittgenstein wrote an entire book (pretentiously called the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, no less) about how philosophy was nonsense, of which that quote was the conclusion. However, his book was itself philosophical, so he was forced to concede that it, too, was nonsense. (He apparently revised his views later on; I don't know that much about Wittgenstein's ideas, though.)

Anyway, to assume that which cannot be proven by scientific means is "irrational nonsense" is to make the very error I am attempting to dissuade people from. It is basically assuming that science is the only road to truth.

I don't believe that science is the only road to truth, but I believe it is the only road to knowledge. For example, suppose I flip a coin and it lands on heads. Later, I ask someone who has not seen me perform this act: "What was the outcome of my flip?" and he confidently replies: "Heads". Well, he's right insofar as what he said was true; nonetheless, he has no knowledge of the flip or its outcome -- it was just a lucky guess. Similarly, it is logically possible that God exists, but we cannot have any knowledge of God; at best, if we correctly believe in God, we have merely guessed luckily. To discuss issues of which one cannot have knowledge I call "nonsense", for such a conversation consists solely of idle and unsubstantiated speculation.

This is of course false, because science relies upon assumptions that cannot be proven by science (existence of time, existence of space, causality, repeatability and reality of phenomena, or at least a certain relationship between the world-as-it-is-observed and the world-as-it-is). Therefore, if the conclusions of science are true, their must be extrascientific means of arriving at truth. This snake is eating its tail (most do).

Yes, to have any hope of gaining knowledge, we must build an axiomatic basis on which to rest such knowledge. If we make this basis too skimpy, we would not be able to know anything interesting; if we make it too broad, we will be able to "know" contradictory things. For example, someone might believe the Qu'ran is true while another may believe the Bible is true -- these contradictory beliefs arise from an overly broad idea of what constitutes knowledge and show that this broad conception of knowledge is logically indefensible. I agree that we have to make certain unscientific assumptions about reality in order to have any hope of understanding it; however, I do not think all assumptions we may make are equally valid. Instead, I think that the ones which lead to empirical science are the only valid and useful ones (simpler ones might be valid but not useful).

So, to your alteration of "whereof one cannot speak" to "whereof one cannot speak with purely scientific proof, thereof one must be silent," I reply, "Well then, we'd all better shut up, about everything, for a good long time."

Lol.

I strongly disagree. The thing about Christianity is that it is a text-based religion. As such, one can separate Christianity from Christianity-as-it-is-practiced. Perhaps I should have made it clear that when I spoke of "Jesus' message," I was attempting to make an appeal to Christianity rather than Christianity-as-it-is-practiced.

Maybe I should've been more clear: I do believe Christianity was progressive when it was created (which is why it appealed to the poor and women, who oppressed by the traditional, pre-Christian order), and the text of the Bible reflects this. However, I believe the text not to be particularly progressive by modern-day standards (in terms of homosexuality, for example). I haven't read the Bible, though, so I obviously can't speak with any degree of surety about it -- what I know about extremely anti-progressive passages from the Bible was gleaned from The West Wing.



Be that as it may, I do believe that the text of the Bible reflects a significantly more progressive world view than the world view espoused by many so-called Christians today (there's a nice quote about this attributed to Gandhi: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians -- your Christians are so unlike your Christ"). Anyway, it would be hard to determine how liberal the Bible is overall without going through each passage; I agree that significant portions of it are highly liberal. However, I do believe that Christianity, as a political force, became significantly more oppressive as it gained more power, and it paid less and less lip service to its philosophical underpinnings. Of course, there are still people who remain faithful to the teachings of Christ, but they constitute a small minority of self-labeled Christians.

I am claiming for Christianity a bit of an "inherently revolutionary" character, what with the be happy when you're persecuted, blessed are the meek, rich people are gonna have trouble getting into heaven business (but then of course, right around the corner is the bit where the Roman centurion's son is healed because of his faith, and the Roman centurion probably ain't hurtin' for money).

I also agree with this -- I did concede that Christianity began as an insurrectionary movement. And there are indeed many portions of the Bible that afford a positive world-view, especially those that deal with selflessness. Given my scant knowledge of the Bible, I believe these are counterbalanced by passages which are considerably less sanguine. To give an example I find funny (http://bible.cc/2_kings/2-24.htm): "Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, 'Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!' When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria". But I certainly don't purport to be an expert on the subject of the Bible -- if you say it's mostly good stuff, I'll take your word for it.

[Brilliand]

I'm not saying religion is perfect. I am saying it isn't just "a big black box." Nothing is just a big black box. (Yes, please do quote the preceding sentence and post a picture of a big black box).

Why has nobody else done this yet? Can't anyone grant such a simple request? (To be fair though, there is also a table and some other stuff in the background. If you like I can edit those out, though I don't think I can prevent it from being a Web-displayable image.)

[Gilly]

First off, for those who accuse me of being atheist, dogmatically materialistic, etc, I am not. My position against religion stems from no personal or scientific origin, but rather from the fact that religion has killed more people than all of the AK 47s, nuclear bombs, and crucifixes in history. It has certainly helped a great many peopl, but I believe that it is mostly a psychological chemo therapy for those lacking faith in humanity, and is by no means the only treatment of its kind.

More later, my phone is dying.

[Bardia]

First off, for those who accuse me of being atheist, dogmatically materialistic, etc, I am not. My position against religion stems from no personal or scientific origin, but rather from the fact that religion has killed more people than all of the AK 47s, nuclear bombs, and crucifixes in history. It has certainly helped a great many peopl, but I believe that it is mostly a psychological chemo therapy for those lacking faith in humanity, and is by no means the only treatment of its kind.

More later, my phone is dying.

False. People with their own goals have used religion to convince others to kill many people.

[jason_m]

I like to think most things we consider to be supernatural can be explained by science via psychology

But how do we know that they are psychological unless we have the actual answers? In other words, good information has to be available about the phenomenon before it can be written off as psychological... And that would be part of the underlying premise of my post.

[Azeroffs]

yeah, it's true. It's an ongoing process. It's both the strength and weakness of science in that you must constantly be on the lookout for more information and not let anything be simply written off as anything. The only thing I find any value in is going by current understandings and findings which, to my knowledge, point in the way of many supernatural things being psychological. I wouldn't consider the issue solved. It's just a tentative explanation, as are all scientific notions.