Thread derailment - Richard Dawkin's God Delusion, I could not read it

[Ophiolite]

And I think the answer is quite clearly yes, for two reasons.

Firstly I don't see any reason why science can not apply to any aspect of life.

Science follows the principle of methodological naturalism. As such investigation of the supernatural is excluded on the basis that it will not be possible to replicate experimental evidence. Science has chosen to exclude such investigation from its brief. That seems sufficient reason to answer No. Of course, if you want a rule change, that's going to take some argument.

[John Cuthber]

I'm not sure the supernatural exists.

If not then I'm right: the things excluded from scientific study are non existent so everything which does exists is not supernatural and is, therefore open to investigation..

If, on the other hand, supernatural things exist, please let me know what they are, however, in order to be relevant to the thread, they need to be things in Dawkins' book.

 

 

 

Of course, there are plenty of things for which we don't yet know the scientific reason. But, if that were taken as a reason not to study them it would be self defeating.

After all, we didn't understand fire until we studied it. At some point in the past it would have been "supernatural" by this definition I found on-line

"(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." but it's now well understood

It seems reasonable to me that work along these lines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

may well explain "God"

 

If we don't study it, we will never find out.

 

 

.

Edited June 19, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Ringer]

Science follows the principle of methodological naturalism. As such investigation of the supernatural is excluded on the basis that it will not be possible to replicate experimental evidence. Science has chosen to exclude such investigation from its brief. That seems sufficient reason to answer No. Of course, if you want a rule change, that's going to take some argument.

I think his statement was valid with the qualifiers he used. Although I would say that science ignores the supernatural realm (if there is one) how the discussion was going was that Dawkins was doing things that were not scientific. Since his entire premise in the book was to analyse religion scientifically God would be categorized as natural phenomena, else the book would have been just a couple of sentence saying, 'I can't write this book'. Since 'supernatural' was not a set characteristic of God in this discussion I think the argument was valid.

 

Just my two cents.

[Dbaiba]

Yes, science does have something to say about those things, there is no evidence for them, none whatsoever... except for morality and ethics which are not based in religion and your assertion they are needs to be supported...

 

 

Precisely, there is no scientific evidence for god, any god, yours or anyone elses, in the face of a lack of evidence for gods the default position is there are no gods...

 

 

Quite the contrary, Dawkins position is indeed scientific, your's is not and is not supported by anything other than what some people claim to be true...

 

 

Until you can show some actual evidence for the supernatural the default position is there is nothing supernatural, horsefeathers claimed by someone who cannot show any evidence for his claims of horsefeathers, if you can't show it you don't know it...

The abscence of evidence is the evidence of abscence , is what you seem to say here ;

 

The abscence of evidence is not always the evidence of abscence , i must add

 

Proof ?

 

Well, science cannot prove neither the existence of our consciousness as such nor the existence of our subjective inner lives as such , to mention just those : Does that mean they do not exist as such , according to you ?

 

I think his statement was valid with the qualifiers he used. Although I would say that science ignores the supernatural realm (if there is one) how the discussion was going was that Dawkins was doing things that were not scientific. Since his entire premise in the book was to analyse religion scientifically God would be categorized as natural phenomena, else the book would have been just a couple of sentence saying, 'I can't write this book'. Since 'supernatural' was not a set characteristic of God in this discussion I think the argument was valid.

 

Just my two cents.

I am aware of that : science cannot function otherwise : that's the nature of science to deal with just natural phenomena : that does not mean that naturalism 's approach is the only valid one ,because there are other valid sources of knowledge as well .

 

It's logical , rational and scientific indeed to exclude the supernatural from science , but that does not mean that the supernatural does not exist as such as a result , that everything outside of the realm of science simply does not exist as such

 

 

In short :

 

Science does not have the monopoly of the truth , science is not the only source of knowledge .

 

There are some aspects of reality science can never approach as such , simply because they exist outside of the realm of science ( science cannot capture the ultimate reality as a whole anyway , science can only approach and isolate the fragments of the natural material reality ) as science cannot approach some levels of the human consciousness , for example .

 

You, folks , make it sound as if science can approach reality as a whole , as if science can approach the essence of things = very unscientific way of thinking .

 

You should just say , well, science excludes the supernatural because the latter , if it exists , lays outside of the realm of science .

 

So, science has nothing to say about it .

 

Instead you seem to say that as the supernatural , if it exists , is outside of the realm of science , so the supernatural does not exist as such = false and unscientific approach of yours .

Edited June 19, 2013 by Dbaiba

[iNow]

It's logical , rational and scientific indeed to exclude the supernatural from science , but that does not mean that the supernatural does not exist as such as a result

Indeed, but that also means it's not really worth anyone's time since it cannot be tested or validated or be studied in any way beyond mental masturbation. It's all just speculation and wish thinking and pretend unless there is evidence or natural connection, and your pretend world is no better than someone else's pretend world. Your fairy tale is no better than the fairy tale of someone having a fever dream or a child believing in similar fantasies.

[Dbaiba]

I'm not sure the supernatural exists.

If not then I'm right: the things excluded from scientific study are non existent so everything which does exists is not supernatural and is, therefore open to investigation..

If, on the other hand, supernatural things exist, please let me know what they are, however, in order to be relevant to the thread, they need to be things in Dawkins' book.

 

 

 

Of course, there are plenty of things for which we don't yet know the scientific reason. But, if that were taken as a reason not to study them it would be self defeating.

After all, we didn't understand fire until we studied it. At some point in the past it would have been "supernatural" by this definition I found on-line

"(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." but it's now well understood

It seems reasonable to me that work along these lines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

may well explain "God"

 

If we don't study it, we will never find out.

 

 

.

It' s unscientific to say that the supernatural does not exist as such ,simply because science cannot approach the supernatural , or because if the supernatural exists , it lats outside of the realm of science .

 

 

Worse : science can thus ,per definition, never be able either to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural , but you , guys , think that if there is a supernatural, science will prove its existence , if not , then the supernatural does not exist anyway : pretty lawsy illogical thinking , not even remotely scientific.

[iNow]

Worse : science can thus ,per definition, never be able either to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural , but you , guys , think that if there is a supernatural, science will prove its existence , if not , then the supernatural does not exist anyway : pretty lawsy illogical thinking , not even remotely scientific.

It's not unscientific to assume something does not exist until reasonable evidence to the contrary has been provided... Evidence which properly scales with the nature of the claim.

[Dbaiba]

Indeed, but that also means it's not really worth anyone's time since it cannot be tested or validated or be studied in any way beyond mental masturbation. It's all just speculation and wish thinking and pretend unless there is evidence or natural connection, and your pretend world is no better than someone else's pretend world. Your fairy tale is no better than the fairy tale of someone having a fever dream or a child believing in similar fantasies.

What if the supernatural does exist ? Then what

 

If the supernatural does exist , for example, science cannot prove its existence anyway, as science cannot prove the non-existence of the supernatural

 

Either way : that does not mean that the supernatural does not exist as such, simply because science cannot approach it , if it exists .

 

Your logic is full of holes, guys .

 

See above .

[Moontanman]

The abscence of evidence is the evidence of abscence , is what you seem to say here ;

 

The abscence of evidence is not always the evidence of abscence , i must add

 

Proof ?

 

Well, science cannot prove neither the existence of our consciousness as such nor the existence of our subjective inner lives as such , to mention just those : Does that mean they do not exist as such , according to you ?

 

Yes but the absence of evidence does not allow you to assert anything as real either, There is no evidence for the existence of unicorns, or vertebrate hexapods like centaurs or dragons, does that mean we must allow for their existence or do we assume that in the face of a lack of any empirical evidence of such things they do not exist. You realise this stance allows such evidence to be given, if someone finds a fossil of a centaur the argument changes immediately but until some evidence turns up the default position is there are no such creatures...

 

As for consciousness science actually can give a good explanation of the conscious mind and the inner workings of the mind and such things exist in the same way my imagination can picture the StarShip Enterprise and all the mythos surrounding that subjective inner life but it does not provide evidence that the Star Trek universe is real even though some of the stuff predicted by Star Trek has come to pass, in fact Star Trek is a far better predictor of reality than any religion and it is nothing but fantasy...

 

 

 

What if the supernatural does exist ? Then what

 

If the supernatural does exist , for example, science cannot prove its existence anyway, as science cannot prove the non-existence of the supernatural

 

Either way : that does not mean that the supernatural does not exist as such, simply because science cannot approach it , if it exists .

 

Your logic is full of holes, guys .

 

See above .

 

If the supernatural does exist it exerts no perceptible influence on the natural world, cannot be used to gain or add to the sum total of human knowledge and in fact belief in the supernatural has never explained any natural phenomena and has in most cases actually retarded such knowledge... So why consider the supernatural at all? In cases where some event or effect was thought to be supernatural in all cases a naturalistic explanation led to greater understanding, the idea of the supernatural has never done so.

[Dbaiba]

It's not unscientific to assume something does not exist until reasonable evidence to the contrary has been provided... Evidence which properly scales with the nature of the claim.

Correct , but that's not what i meant :

 

I said : you presume that the supernatural does not exist as such , simply because science cannot prove its existence , but you forget that science cannot , per definition , prove its existence anyway , even if the supernatural does exist .

 

Science , per definition, in fact can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural

 

So, science has nothing to say about it

 

Your paradox is as follows : you expect from science to be able to prove or diprove the existence of something it cannot , per definition, do anyway : the supernatural in this case then .

 

Worse : you expect science to prove the existence of the supernatural, if it exists at least , forgetting that science can never do such a thing either

 

Use your minds ,guys, please

[Moontanman]

Before it gets pointed out by a moderator i am going to bow out of this, I cannot seem to stay on topic and answer the assertions being put forward by Dbaiba

[Dbaiba]

Yes but the absence of evidence does not allow you to assert anything as real either, There is no evidence for the existence of unicorns, or vertebrate hexapods like centaurs or dragons, does that mean we must allow for their existence or do we assume that in the face of a lack of any empirical evidence of such things they do not exist. You realise this stance allows such evidence to be given, if someone finds a fossil of a centaur the argument changes immediately but until some evidence turns up the default position is there are no such creatures...

 

As for consciousness science actually can give a good explanation of the conscious mind and the inner workings of the mind and such things exist in the same way my imagination can picture the StarShip Enterprise and all the mythos surrounding that subjective inner life but it does not provide evidence that the Star Trek universe is real even though some of the stuff predicted by Star Trek has come to pass, in fact Star Trek is a far better predictor of reality than any religion and it is nothing but fantasy...

 

 

 

 

If the supernatural does exist it exerts no perceptible influence on the natural world, cannot be used to gain or add to the sum total of human knowledge and in fact belief in the supernatural has never explained any natural phenomena and has in most cases actually retarded such knowledge... So why consider the supernatural at all? In cases where some event or effect was thought to be supernatural in all cases a naturalistic explanation led to greater understanding, the idea of the supernatural has never done so.

You do not read well what i say :

 

I said ;

 

A: The abscence of evidence is not always the evidence of abscence ;

 

And i gave some examples : see above then

 

B: science cannot prove the existence of the human consciousness as such was 1 of my examples , but you talk about the function of the human consciousness science can indeed explain , to some extent at least : those are 2 different things .

 

C: How do you know what you say about the supernatural anyway : you deny its existence and then, you say , even it exists it's worthless : that's another discussion

 

 

I am talking about the existence of the supernatural now, not about its purpose or worth

My point was : the existence of the supernatural can not be excluded just because science cannot , per definition, approach it

 

 

Understand ?

 

You simply choose to dismiss the existence of the supernatural , because otherwise that would not suit you , that's all : that has nothing to do with science , it has more to do with your pre- set choice not to believe in the supernatural, that;s all .

 

 

You just gotta admit that then

 

Before it gets pointed out by a moderator i am going to bow out of this, I cannot seem to stay on topic and answer the assertions being put forward by Dbaiba

Why not ?

 

Because you simply can't

 

There 's a whole realm out there beyond that of science : that does not mean it does not exist .

 

And science can never be able neither to prove nor disprove its existence

 

To say that science can is simply unscientific , simply because science , per definition, cannot

 

 

In short :

 

You just hide behind science instead of admitting your refusal to believe in the supernatural .for no reason .

 

To try to back up this choice of yours by science (Science cannot once again, per definition , deliver that back up you're so desperately looking for ) is a real paradox you are not even aware of : simply pathetic

 

" We have all been raised to think a certain way , to behave a certain way ...to perceive reality in a certain way ...missing the whole spectrum of other potential levels of reality "

 

There are many levels of reality as there are many levels of human consciousness way beyond the limited and tiny realm of science .

Edited June 19, 2013 by Dbaiba

[Arete]

I said ;

 

A: The abscence of evidence is not always the evidence of abscence ;

 

 

Which is a logical fallacy, known as "shifting the burden of proof."

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

If you make a positive assertion that X exists, it is up to you to provide evidence that it does. Trying to shift the burden of proof and claim that the other party has to prove X doesn't exist and that the default position is to assume X exists is logically fallacious.

 

This is why the scientific method relies on the use of test and null hypothesis. In the absence of evidence for the test hypothesis, the null is retained pending further evidence. Therefore, without repeatable observation demonstrating the existence of a deity, the scientifically correct position is to assume one does not exist until evidence to the contrary arises.

 

Not, as you're suggesting to refuse to accept one "for no reason".

[Dbaiba]

So , just run away and admit your ignorance and your impotence :

 

The real threat to the truth is not ignorance , but the pretention of knowledge

 

Which is a logical fallacy, known as "shifting the burden of proof."

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

If you make a positive assertion that X exists, it is up to you to provide evidence that it does. Trying to shift the burden of proof and claim that the other party has to prove X doesn't exist and that the default position is to assume X exists is logically fallacious.

 

This is why the scientific method relies on the use of test and null hypothesis. In the absence of evidence for the test hypothesis, the null is retained pending further evidence. Therefore, without repeatable observation demonstrating the existence of a deity, the scientifically correct position is to assume one does not exist until evidence to the contrary arises.

 

Not, as you're suggesting to refuse to accept one "for no reason".

I wonder whether you have been reading me well or not :

 

If there is no evidence of the existence of A , then is A probably non-existant indeed

 

But there are some exceptions to that rule as i mentioned here above

 

Besides :

I said : even science itself cannot , per definition , neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural .

 

That's not the nature of science to do so, nor is it its function or role

 

So, science has nothing to say about it

 

So, there can be no mention of scientific evidence or scientific lack of evidence concerning neither the existence or the alleged non-existence of the supernatural= a non- issue

 

To keep on talking about evidence or no evidence in this regard at least is a paradox, a contradiction , an unscientific , illogic and an irrational assumption: contradictio in terminis

 

I am not gonna repeat myself over and over again, sorry

 

Thanks by the way anyway

Edited June 19, 2013 by Dbaiba

[Moontanman]

So , just run away and admit your ignorance and your impotence :

 

The real threat to the truth is not ignorance , but the pretention of knowledge

 

Projection much? If you want to discuss the nature of reality vs the supernatural i suggest you start your own thread because that is off topic here...

[Dbaiba]

Projection much? If you want to discuss the nature of reality vs the supernatural i suggest you start your own thread because that is off topic here...

The supernatural makes part of reality or of the ultimate reality

 

Science cannot , per definition, approach that part of reality : the supernatural

 

So, i have been ontopic all along

 

You just do not wanna see that , because you are conditioned to see just the natural part of reality

[iNow]

What if the supernatural does exist ? Then what

 

If the supernatural does exist , for example, science cannot prove its existence anyway, as science cannot prove the non-existence of the supernatural

 

Either way : that does not mean that the supernatural does not exist as such, simply because science cannot approach it , if it exists .

 

Your logic is full of holes, guys .

 

See above .

I didn't say the supernatural didn't exist. I said if you cannot study or measure it in any way, it's not functionally different from fantasy and pretend, and is a waste of time. My logic is fine, no matter how strongly you continue to strawman it.

[Moontanman]

The supernatural makes part of reality or of the ultimate reality

 

No, without objective evidence you cannot assert this and be honest...

 

Science cannot , per definition, approach that part of reality : the supernatural

 

No, again you are not being honest, science has many times approached things that were thought to be supernatural in all cases a natural explanation was consistent with the evidence.

 

So, i have been ontopic all along

 

You just do not wanna see that , because you are conditioned to see just the natural part of reality

 

Now you are strawmanning me, you are making an assumption about that you cannot possibly know then criticizing me for it, totally dishonest like any other apologist...

[iNow]

Correct , but that's not what i meant :

 

I said : you presume that the supernatural does not exist as such

I presume no such thing, I simply live my life on the assumption that it does not since it has no impact and is not able to be studied or tested or falsified... or frankly even defined in a meaningful way that can find consensus.

[Dbaiba]

I do invite you all , including your Dawkins , and i challenge you to come to the south of Morocco to see some real encounters with the supernatural haha

 

You are all more than welcome to visit the country

 

I have had a scientific education as well, don't worry

 

I am not some superstitious charlaten haha

 

There are indeed plenty of superstitions out there science had debunked as such , but that's another thing totally different from what i was talking about

 

The supernatural does exist , folks

 

And it's pretty both logical and rational to be both a believer and a scientist : the one does not exclude the other , in my world at least.

 

That's 1 of the reasons why earlier muslims did invent the scientific method itself thanks to the epistemolohy of the Qur'an , to mention just that fact

 

Take care

I didn't say the supernatural didn't exist. I said if you cannot study or measure it in any way, it's not functionally different from fantasy and pretend, and is a waste of time. My logic is fine, no matter how strongly you continue to strawman it.

How do you know then that the supernatural does exist ?

 

And why do you put it in the same basket with fantasies and illusions ....?

 

There is a difference between them , even though it's difficult to differentiate between them indeed , but the latter is no reason to dismiss the real supernatural as such as a waste of time , as you put it .

 

 

Your logic is still full of holes, buddy , despite your indignation and denial

 

 

P.S.: Once again : science, per definition, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural

 

So, there can be no talk about scientific evidence or lack of scientific evidence concerning neither the existence nor the alleged non-existence of the supernatural

 

To keep talking about scientific evidence or no scientific evidence in regard to the supernatural is not only illogical , irrational and unscientific , but i's also paradoxical

[iNow]

There are indeed plenty of superstitions out there science had debunked as such , but that's another thing totally different from what i was talking about

 

Oh, yes. Of course, YOUR superstitions are way different than those OTHER superstitions. Since you've been getting a bit of a lesson in logical fallacies from members here lately, you should note that this one in which you've just engaged is known as the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[Moontanman]

I do invite you all , including your Dawkins , and i challenge you to come to the south of Morocco to see some real encounters with the supernatural haha

 

You are all more than welcome to visit the country

 

I have had a scientific education as well, don't worry

 

I am not some superstitious charlaten haha

 

There are indeed plenty of superstitions out there science had debunked as such , but that's another thing totally different from what i was talking about

 

The supernatural does exist , folks

 

And it's pretty both logical and rational to be both a believer and a scientist : the one does not exclude the other , in my world at least.

 

That's 1 of the reasons why earlier muslims did invent the scientific method itself thanks to the epistemolohy of the Qur'an , to mention just that fact

 

Take care

 

How do you know then that the supernatural does exist ?

 

And why do you put it in the same basket with fantasies and illusions ....?

 

There is a difference between them , even though it's difficult to differentiate between them indeed , but the latter is no reason to dismiss the real supernatural as such as a waste of time , as you put it .

 

 

Your logic is still full of holes, buddy , despite your indignation and denial

 

 

P.S.: Once again : science, per definition, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural

 

So, there can be no talk about scientific evidence or lack of scientific evidence concerning neither the existence nor the alleged non-existence of the supernatural

 

To keep talking about scientific evidence or no scientific evidence in regard to the supernatural is not only illogical , irrational and unscientific , but i's also paradoxical

 

 

And yet you can give no examples of anything supernatural, James Randy and $1,000,000 is waiting for you...

[Dbaiba]

I presume no such thing, I simply live my life on the assumption that it does not since it has no impact and is not able to be studied or tested or falsified... or frankly even defined in a meaningful way that can find consensus.

How do you know its has no impact on you, on your life and therefore no impact on humanity ,on the world, on the universe ?

 

How do you know that? , since even science cannot even prove or disprove its existence : the existence of the supernatural, i mean

 

How did you get to know that , i wanna know

 

And how can you acknowledge the existence of something you cannot define as such ? Is not being able to define it a reason enough to dismiss it as worthless or with no impact ?

 

When i say i believe in the supernatural , i mean what i say , i believe , that;s different from knowing and only knowing can define the known

 

So, don't expect the supernatural to be clearly defined , not in this life at least

There is a lots of inconsistency and contradiction in those few words of yours

 

This is a psychological thing , i guess

 

When people are confronted with their irrationality regarding the denial of something , they say afterwards, i do not rule its existence out , but then they switch to another denial they cannot prove either

 

 

I expect another degree of denial from you as a result

[Dbaiba]

Oh, yes. Of course, YOUR superstitions are way different than those OTHER superstitions. Since you've been getting a bit of a lesson in logical fallacies from members here lately, you should note that this one in which you've just engaged is known as the No True Scotsman fallacy.

You wanna subject something (The real supernatural in this case ) to logic and reason, while even science itself should be , per definition, silent about it ? : very logical of yours indeed

 

That's why we just believe in the supernatural and we have reasons enough for that , ironically enough : the revelation, the existence of some prophets at least

 

I expect you know to attack the latter

 

save your breath , buddy , because all similar attempts had already failed pathetically

Edited June 19, 2013 by Dbaiba

[Arete]

 

If there is no evidence of the existence of A , then is A probably non-existant indeed

 

Probably has nothing to do with it. It's logic.

 

The burden of proof is on the side of the positive claim. Science (and law, and logical discourse) formalize this. Shifting the burden of proof is not a valid argument - and it seems to be the foundation of your entire argument. Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it become a valid argument.

 

 

But there are some exceptions to that rule as i mentioned here above

 

No there aren't. Religion doesn't get a special pass from the rules of logic because you say so - that's another logical fallacy known as special pleading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

 

 

So, science has nothing to say about it

 

Sure it does - that's why "God did it" isn't a valid conclusion for an experiment or observation. The retention of a null hypothesis on God renders the concept unscientific. Religion, by affirming the supernatural is unscientific, not an exception to science.