Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[The Grand Nudger]

The same way we prove anything. For example, by reference to the definition of supernatural we've been asked to consider in this thread...nothing can be supernatural by definition.

[possibletarian]

Lol, yeah. He’s gonna have to explain exactly how one rules out a natural explanation for some phenomenon.

Does "he" refer to me here? 

If the subject were less emotional for people, I think it would be obvious how science would rule out something: through scientific research. That's really the only way science can do anything.

So suppose 1000 frog scientists from reputable universities did the research. They discovered that given the way frogs are put together, it is physically impossible for a frog to sing the soprano and bass parts of an Italian opera simultaneously. They all sign a letter saying that there is no natural explanation.

At that point someone who's committed to your unprovable metaphysical view would have to say that science is wrong, that anything we observe must be natural even if science tells us otherwise. This puts the unprovable metaphysics ahead of scientific consensus.

It's been stated very clearly on this thread. No matter what is observed, you've already concluded, before the research is done, what kind of conclusion you'll reach.

I'm not saying supernatural things go on. I am only saying that your metaphysical commitment, while unprovable, pre-determines what answers you will allow.

So suppose 1000 frog scientists from reputable universities did the research. They discovered that given the way frogs are put together, it is physically impossible for a frog to sing the soprano and bass parts of an Italian opera simultaneously. They all sign a letter saying that there is no natural explanation.

They would never sign a letter saying that, but they certainly would say there is no known explanation, to say there is no natural explanation would be a leap of faith, not science. And why on earth would they say 'Science is wrong? ' wouldn't they say that they had never observed this before ?

And it would help us immensely if you could list your reasons for jumping to a non-natural explanation as an alternative, or thinking it's even possible. (aside from a possible personal belief)

---

As I wrote yesterday, I'm fine with the idea that science can describe everything natural.

But we don't know that it can answer every question, but again if it fails to why invoke a non~natural agent or possibility ?

You want us to consider a non~natural world, but have failed to explain why we should actively do so.

[Succubus#2]

According to the definition you're using? Of course; it will be your particular definition du jour. Your definitions are remarkably fickle things.

If we're going to talk about something, it makes sense to define that thing. If you'd prefer to use a different definition, and make it clear, that's fine with me.

It is beyond my capabilities to define something that does not exist

But anyway, there is no such thing as the supernatural and we know this for an absolute certainty because there is no possible mechanism whereby in can work.

How do you prove this? 

Prove it to yourself by reading the link and or, watch the video.


The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood.


As I wrote yesterday, I'm fine with the idea that science can describe everything natural.

Your singing frogs? *If* they exist of course, there's always an if isn't there.

[Belacqua]

Your singing frogs? *If* they exist of course, there's always an if isn't there.

I don't believe that singing frogs exist. The "if" is there because it's an example of how a person's metaphysical commitments influence and predetermine the kind of conclusions one draws from wildly improbably empirical observations. That's what I've been talking about.

Just now I added something to my earlier post. I'll put it here too, so that you don't miss it.

edit to add:

I watched the video. In the portion you describe as "an uppercut that floors the mystics," Dr. Carroll makes a persuasive case that no natural particle or field strong enough to affect the human mind over long distances remains undiscovered. I'm happy to take his word for it -- anyone who is claiming that undiscovered natural particles or fields affect the human mind over long distances should stop making that claim. 

However, he doesn't say anything about the supernatural. Why should he? He's a physicist. His job is the natural world. 

I don't know of any mystic who argues that undiscovered natural particles or fields affect the human mind. Are you sure you know what a mystic is? If they are making claims about the supernatural world, it is not something that Dr. Carroll will study. His speech here is completely irrelevant to the claims of mystics.

I find the writings of some mystics to be very beautiful. Theresa of Avila, Boehme, and Blake are among my favorites. Have you read anything by them? If you did, I think it would make clear that none of them makes claims that modern physics could address.

[The Grand Nudger]

Plenty of scientists study human superstitions in order to discover things about the human mind. They're called anthropologists.

[polymath257]

Lol, yeah. He’s gonna have to explain exactly how one rules out a natural explanation for some phenomenon.

Does "he" refer to me here? 

If the subject were less emotional for people, I think it would be obvious how science would rule out something: through scientific research. That's really the only way science can do anything.

So suppose 1000 frog scientists from reputable universities did the research. They discovered that given the way frogs are put together, it is physically impossible for a frog to sing the soprano and bass parts of an Italian opera simultaneously. They all sign a letter saying that there is no natural explanation.

OK, then we take the observed fact that the frogs sing duets and see where that takes us. What are the patterns? What can we test about those patterns?

All that having no 'natural explanation' means is that we have to change the science. At worst, the raw observations that frogs are singing opera becomes the new core of a science.

At that point someone who's committed to your unprovable metaphysical view would have to say that science is wrong, that anything we observe must be natural even if science tells us otherwise. This puts the unprovable metaphysics ahead of scientific consensus.

Not at all. What we are saying is that the fact of opera singing frogs does not negate the scientific *method*. What can we say about those frogs? What other characteristics do they have? Can we induce opera singing in other frogs? Maybe get it to happen in toads? Can we get them to sing Verdi? How about rock?

Once we have a validated observation that we have no explanation for, we look for patterns. We can test those patterns and see which ones hold up and which ones fail. And the patterns that hold up will become the new science after the revolution is over.

It's been stated very clearly on this thread. No matter what is observed, you've already concluded, before the research is done, what kind of conclusion you'll reach.

I'm not saying supernatural things go on. I am only saying that your metaphysical commitment, while unprovable, pre-determines what answers you will allow.

No, it really does not. It excludes only proposals that are not explanations at all.

But, if we look at the singing frogs and figure out patterns *any patterns*, those testable patterns are the basis of the new science. It may not be based on atoms and molecules and sound waves, but whatever patterns are found will be the science of it. Of course, we *also* know there are atoms, molecules and sound waves, but this would give another direction to investigate.

---

I don't know of any mystic who argues that undiscovered natural particles or fields affect the human mind. Are you sure you know what a mystic is? If they are making claims about the supernatural world, it is not something that Dr. Carroll will study. His speech here is completely irrelevant to the claims of mystics.

I find the writings of some mystics to be very beautiful. Theresa of Avila, Boehme, and Blake are among my favorites. Have you read anything by them? If you did, I think it would make clear that none of them makes claims that modern physics could address.

Yes, a mystic is someone who says beautiful, but meaningless stuff about things that cannot be tested and with explanations that don't carry any value as explanations.

Mystics like those you point to are either delusional from mental illness, delusional from drug use or delusional because they believe their dreams too much.

Take too many psychedelics and you will have a mystical experience. When you come down, it can still affect your life for years. But it is still BS.

[Belacqua]

All that having no 'natural explanation' means is that we have to change the science. 

I've already addressed this. It's begging the question.

Mystics like those you point to are either delusional from mental illness, delusional from drug use or delusional because they believe their dreams too much.

This is your prejudice, but you can't prove it.

[Succubus#2]

[Waffle snipped]

I watched the video. In the portion you describe as "an uppercut that floors the mystics," Dr. Carroll makes a persuasive case that no natural particle of field strong enough to affect the human mind over long distances remains undiscovered.

He says no such fucking thing! He says they do not exist!

I'm happy to take his word for it -- anyone who is claiming that undiscovered natural particles or fields affect the human mind over long distances should stop making that claim. 

It's not his word, it's (one of) the conclusions of the standard model of physics.

However, he doesn't say anything about the supernatural.

You either didn't watch it or you didn't understand it.

Why should he? He's a physicist. His job is the natural world. 

That's pretty definitive, you definitely didn't understand.

I don't know of any mystic who argues that undiscovered natural particles or fields affect the human mind. Are you sure you know what a mystic is?

Someone who believes in the existence of realities beyond human comprehension?

If they are making claims about the supernatural world, it is not something that Dr. Carroll will study. His speech here is completely irrelevant to the claims of mystics.

His speech negates everything the mystics et al, have to say.

I find the writings of some mystics to be very beautiful. Theresa of Avila, Boehme, and Blake are among my favorites. Have you read anything by them? If you did, I think it would make clear that none of them makes claims that modern physics could address.

Well that's nice. Now tell me what part of Carroll's lecture do you disagree with.

[Belacqua]

His speech negates everything the mystics et al, have to say.

No mystic whom I'm aware of claims that undiscovered natural particles or fields affect the human mind over great distances. Therefore his speech negates nothing of what they say.

I already typed this.

Well that's nice. Now tell me what part of Carroll's lecture do you disagree with.

As I already wrote, I don't disagree with any part.

[Succubus#2]

As I already wrote, I don't disagree with any part.

Then you agree there is no such thing as the supernatural?