Science and the Supernatural

[Gilly]

Yesssss I've been waiting for a chance to rip you up

I'd just like to say very simply that it is illogical to believe God doesn't exist.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAH AHAHAHAIHAFISHDFJDFVKSfposdfjgerhpfcbdspqwe

I took a few astronomy courses in university, one including the Big Bang Theory, all quite interesting. But it doesn't explain how the first black hole got there. How did the first star get there?

How did God get there? Why can matter, or its building blocks, not have existed before they formed their present organized state, the universe that exists today? What makes you so certain that it had to be an external, conscious force?

And, before we go any further, please clarify your definition of "God." Are you a Christian? What kind of Christian? What ontological or existential traits to you ascribe to your idea of "God?"

There has to be a creator of the universe. Until atheists can explain how the first star, black hole, element, or whatever got there, I think it is smarter/more logical to believe God exists. Even Einstein believed in God.

Nice argument from authority. Einstein has been proven to have been wrong about plenty. The "smartest man in the world," Christopher Langan, also suffers from this disease. I have read his ontology; it is full of holes and is most likely geared towards some attempt to accrue power or attention using his limited media exposure. None of this makes God a more reasonable idea or explanation for the way in which our universe functions.

Second, I'd just like to point out that it wasn't until *relatively* recently that science and religion were in opposition. My pastor says before Darwin came along and challenged religious beliefs of creationism, science was viewed as 'exploring God's creation'; and science and the supernatural were viewed as being together, going hand-in-hand perfectly.

Science and "the supernatural" (a gross misnomer, btw) are hardly incompatible. People are brought up, not through any specific instruction, but through general osmosis of seeing the world around them explained and understood, with the assumption that the world can be thoroughly comprehended throug ha scientific framework or perspective. This is untrue. There are still countless phenomena and facets of our reality that remain unexplained by science.

So it is not science, but rather the culture of science, that has people believing such foolish things. Any human with a rational mind can look at what we have done, and, if he sees clearly, be awed by what we understand and what we have discovered as an incredible accomplishment in apprehending the nature of our world in a comprehensible manner; the fools are those who take science for granted and give it Big Brother status in their minds. No distinction need be made; science is simply the space we have filled in with our knowledge, and there is vastly more space to uncover, some of which people choose to fill with beliefs in "supernatural" phenomena.

I realize we are in agreement here but I hope you will appreciate my elaboration. Please respond so that I may convert you, assuming you are still victim to reason.

[Gilly]

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?

We deserve and need better answers. And they are available. All you have to do is choose them.

[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.

[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.)

[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.

[Begoner]

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?

Indeed; the historical uses of religion are quite interesting. In particular, the Romans used religion in a very adept manner to suit military ends. For example, they had a ritual wherein chickens would be given food before a battle: if they ate their food, that would be an omen of an impending victory, and it would inspire and motivate the troops; if not, then the attack would be postponed. Of course, Roman military leaders did not believe in this superstition, so the food-giving ceremony was carried out secretly by designated "holy men". These men would conduct the ceremony, but report to the leaders not the true outcome, but whatever the leaders wanted to hear. Once, it happened that the holy men lied, saying that the chickens ate their food when they in fact did not; unfortunately, some ordinary troops discovered this. The military leader decided to go ahead with the attack anyway, but he put the lying "holy men" at the front of the line; when they were the first to die, the leader said that the gods had punished the "holy men" for their lies, and therefore they favored the attack after all. Hence the Roman religion was not degraded, but the attack still continued (and was successful).

Moreover, Roman religion compelled citizens to behave honestly, as breaking an oath was thought to be a great sacrilege. Because of this, even high political figures could not break an oath -- not because they themselves believed in the religion, but because they would lose all credibility if they did so. In view of this, Machiavelli concludes (in Discourses on Livy, I.11) that "as the observance of the divine cult is the cause of the greatness of republics, so disdain for it is the cause of their ruin. For where the fear of God fails, it must be either that the kingdom comes to ruin or that it is sustained by the fear of a prince, which supplies the defects of religion". The introduction of religion in Rome ensured that "there was never so much fear of God as in that republic, which made easier whatever enterprise the Senate or the great men of Rome might plan to make".

Throughout history, this has been the central role of religion: securing the allegiance of the people, and making them pliable to State demands. This is why, for example, monarchs claimed to govern by divine will (or claimed to have the mandate of heaven): people listen far more to their superstitions than to political arguments, and their fear of an omnipotent entity exceeds their fear of a mortal man. Only in modern times has religion been supplanted by the state, and even then only in the regions where the state can credibly and justly enforce laws. In view of this, the explanatory power of religion is of decidedly secondary importance -- in fact, it is even counterproductive, as the false explanations religions have offered have undermined their credibility.

[Creepy-Snaps]

And, before we go any further, please clarify your definition of "God." Are you a Christian? What kind of Christian? What ontological or existential traits to you ascribe to your idea of "God?"

I am not Christian, but agnostic. God being the all-powerful entity that existed before anything tangible was created, the being that was the start before other starts.

Are you atheist Gilly? You sound like you are.