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

[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.