schu

Having read through the posts to "Do Science and Christianity Conflict?" I've been reminded of a question I've had for some time. That is, "when is a negative shown to be false in reasonable terms?" I understand that a negative may not be provable in absolute terms, but isn't there some point where they are shown to be false in reasonable terms? Two examples I've thought about most are whether perpetual motion machines are possible and does god exist.

I was able to investigate a claim of a perpetual motion machine first hand. It was an interesting and complex contraption that the builder said would generate more electricity than was used to power it. His input was 110v AC running a one half horsepower electric motor and his output was lighting a forty watt lightbulb. I ask if he could show me in terms of power used and produced how he was generating more than he was using. His answer was that he couldn't do that because he didn't have the figures. And also the machine wasn't operating at peek efficience. Besides not being able to show that the contraption was doing what he said it would do he also said he had patents on the machine. He gave me the numbers and when I checked with the patent office those numbers were for some other entirely different machines issued to entirely different people. I was satisfied that one was a fraud.

Besides this personal experience I've also wondered how someone can get more energy out of a closed system than goes into it. I would think the physical laws involved would show this particular negative, i.e. that perpetual motion machines can't work.

Sojourner brought up Martin Gardner who's book "The Night is Large" I bought and read. I was left with a very unsatisfied feeling when I finished the book. Here is a man with great depth and breadth of knowledge who in his essays debunked nonsense from A to Z but still in the end leaves open the question of the supernatural or metaphysical and in fact believes in god.

I have the impression that every experiment performed using the scientific method demonstrates that this is a natural universe. It seems to me that the several hundred years of applying the scientific method with no evidence of the metaphysical (in the supernatural usage) demonstrates a natural universe.

Is there some time that we can say that a perpetual motion machine defies the natural laws of physics and thus cannot exist? Is there a time when we can say a god defies the natural laws of physics and thus cannot exits? Call me closed minded if you like, and many do, but I think we are already past that time for reasonable people.

Schu

FredJ_UK

The problem with this is, as soon as science proves something, it is removed from the zone of the supernatural/metaphysical into the domain of the natural/physical. So it seems that, by definition, science will never prove the metaphysical.

Veil of Fire

"I have the impression that every experiment performed using the scientific method demonstrates that this is a natural universe. It seems to me that the several hundred years of applying the scientific method with no evidence of the metaphysical (in the supernatural usage) demonstrates a natural universe."

Of course this is a natural universe. But nature is one manifestation of divinity. So, to put it simply, god isn't supernatural, god is natural.

Samhain

Is there a point of worshipping a "god" who is bound by the same laws and contains some of the same properties that we do because he/she/it must, in essence, if he/she/it is to be a natural being? All of the paradoxes (paradoxi? oh, what the hell) that many theistic religions fall back upon as "reason" to worship a said god would cease to exist. Any god in the natural universe must also be bound to that universe as we are, therefore the paradoxal properties of god would no longer be conceivable in a natural universe since they contradict laws of science and logic. One can no longer use the copout "god's ways aren't our ways" since they would then have to be the same as our ways.

nogods4me

So, to put it simply, god isn't supernatural, god is natural.


I think you are missing the third, and the most viable option: God is fiction.

schu

Well, seems to me that when science "proves" or shows how something works it is removed from the not known to the known. This isn't the same as the supernatural, i.e. things that are outside the knowable physical universe. I think the word "metaphysical" tends to confuse the issue because it's other meaning "speculative or abstract reasoning" is thought to be in the realm of the supernatural too. This isn't true but I think people can easily be confused about it.

schu

If your god is natural as you claim than you should be able to test him. I know many people say one isn't supposed to test god, but then what was JC doing walking on water? Or raising Lazarus? Now I don't mean stories are a test, those stories worked only for those people who were there. Like testifying in a court of law, I need the information first hand so I can testify for it. Could you supply some evidence please?

Sojourner553

To Schu: Good, thoughtful post. Sorry I had not seen it before now.

You are aware everyone seemed to ignore my part of the post that metaphysics (including religion) has an abysmal record in predicting the nature of reality, if measured against the findings of modern science. Just a few examples:

* according to Genesis, the earth was created on the First Day of Creation; with the sun and moon created on the Fourth day of Creation; the earth is flat and located at the center of the universe.
* demonic possession was responsible for all mental illnesses.
(2) Philosophies that relied on rational intellect, with no observation also have abysmal records.
(3) There is little consistencies between metaphysical philosophies (New Age, etc) and religion on what is the nature/meaning of the supernatural. That is why there is something like 20,000 sects just within Christianity (if I remember the number right.)

____________________________________________
Re: negative evidence. I thought Percy Bysshe Shelley put it best:

"If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?"

________________________________________________
Regarding Martin Gardner: He once wrote an article admitting that the arguments against the existence of a God were more rational and cogent than the arguments for God’s existence. Still, his emotions wouldn’t allow him to let go his “hope” for a Creator.

Psychologists tell us that the REASONS people act a certain way is that it gives them some form of positive “payoff”. For example, a person who is constantly late is getting some positive feedback or "payoff" (in their mind) from the additional attention it brings him/her.

The same can be said for religion: Here the payoff is that the individual does not have to face the reality of their extinction at death. Some people would rather believe in fairies, reincarnation--anything than face reality! I don’t think “proof” can persuade some people, as they will shut it out with all their willpower.

I remember when I was a theist and had just come across evidence all of the Bible was superstition. My first thought was “Do I really want to let in this information. Do I want to know the truth?” For I realized its implications would pretty much dash any hope for a future life. Still, I have always been passionate for the truth. So after searching myself I was able to answer, ‘No I really want to know the truth – no matter where it takes me.”

I think numerous individuals have faced this same dilemma (Martin Gardner obviously being one of them) but chose a different answer/path than me….

Sojourner

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

schu

Thanks for the reply Sojourner. Did you take that handle because you are only going to be here for a short while, or is it from that brave soul Sojourner Truth?

I like the Shelley quote. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft was another breaker of molds. Another I liked is Thelma McQueen. She kept her skepticism until the end and lived her life as a humane and dignified person. Too bad that outside of us infidels she is only remembered as Prissy.

Your observation of the dismal failure of metaphysics in predicting reality seems to make my point. When is enough enough? How much evidence do we need for a natural universe before we can get shed of the metaphysical. I think we're there already and have been for a long time. We know that the god of the bible isn't true and I think we can say the same of all the religions of the world. Absent the need of a prime mover why does anyone need to believe in the supernatural?

brighid

The supernatural can be comforting, exciting, mysterious and seductive. It provides cookie cutter answers that make it so one doesn’t have to contemplate deeper realities and as we well know, many people don’t want to know the truth because it is uncomfortable. I am sure at some point or at some level, each of us does this sort of blocking of information that we know will make our views come crumbling down. It may be in regard to a partner, a friend, a relative, ones self and so on and so forth. It’s always destructive, but people believe it’s easier NOT to know. I have, at times been guilty of such things myself. I try not to allow this weakness to over come my integrity, but alas I have allowed it to happen.

My mother is a really good example of someone who knows her faith in God is not morally correct, but she adheres to it like a drowning man does to a life vest, even though he is now on dry land. I can see that little light click on in her head when we argue about these things and then there is the blank stare and the forcible removal of such things from the forefront of her mind. Although I am also aware the seeds that have been planted grow and nag at her and cause her to turn more deeply into her intellectual and emotional chasm of blind belief.

I know it took me a while to completely shed theism. Prior to taking the final steps onto the path of atheism I was a devout little witch – literally. It was quite an amazing experience and I still participate in the ritualistic practices of witchcraft but I no longer cling to the idea that a God or Goddess will manifest or assist me in anything. Actually, I will be participating in a full moon ritual tonight My group is quite aware that I am an atheist and it makes no difference. There is another in my group who is also an atheist.
It was scary at 1st because I knew it would make my life more difficult, but I just couldn’t deny the knowledge I had acquired and how that shaped my worldview. Atheism has certainly liberated me from the shackles of theism and for so long, I felt I was living a lie as a theist. Unless something truly compelling and miraculous happens I am confident I couldn’t go back to theism, any sort of theism – although witchcraft is a hell of a lot more fun then any monotheistic faith!

Theism is easier, it’s a psychological safety net and an opiate (to borrow from the famous phrase.) It feels good to people and so they think it’s right. There are also a lot of strong psychologically coercive elements of religion, along with the extortive practices that a religious society uses to control it’s members that make it difficult and even dangerous for many people to allow disbelief to creep far enough in to truly shake their foundations. Can you imagine the misery of being an atheist in Pakistan or Iran – or perhaps back in the day when Europe was dominated by Catholicism, or when it was divided by Protestantism and Catholicism? Even in modern day America atheists have to keep quiet, lest they suffer the wrath of theists. That is quite coercive to those who don’t have the courage to break free.

So, although I think that many people who are theists have the freedom to explore their faith more closely and SHOULD, I feel for those who live in an oppressive and destructive environment that does not allow the intellectual exploration of the veracity of the theistic claims.

In all honesty, I wish I could believe in the fairy tales of my youth. How magnificent the world would be if magic were real!

Brighid