A Challenge to atheists for 2016

[Hope]

Whilst this has been specifically targetted at Shakes on the 'Was Jesus Gay?" thread, I have widened its applicability here, partly so as to avoid breaking the forum rule on using posters' names in thread titles.

__________________________________________________________

Hi Shakes, here are your challenges for the next year. 

1) Produce reference to a scientific document, that has been peer-reviewed or otherwise validated, that shows that your belief that the physical realm is all there is, is valid?

2) Produce reference to a scientific document of the equivalent status of something like the Theory of Gravity that in any way deals with the spiritual realm.

[Shaker]

Hi Shakes, here are your challenges for the next year. 

1) Produce reference to a scientific document, that has been peer-reviewed or otherwise validated, that shows that your belief that the physical realm is all there is, is valid?

The whole of science is predicated on that very viewpoint. It's called methodological naturalism and is the backbone of the scientific endeavour. If you want to posit something other than that you're going to have to provide us with an equivalent methodology for evaluating such claims, and that's your department. Except that repeated requests for this by several different people over a long period of time have consistently drawn a blank.

2) Produce reference to a scientific document of the equivalent status of something like the Theory of Gravity that in any way deals with the spiritual realm.

Before doing that we would need you to define, clearly and precisely, exactly what it is you think you mean by "spiritual realm," and we all know that we'll still be waiting for that this time next year.

[Hope]

The whole of science is predicated on that very viewpoint. It's called methodological naturalism and is the backbone of the scientific endeavour. If you want to posit something other than that you're going to have to provide us with an equivalent methodology for evaluating such claims, and that's your department. Except that repeated requests for this by several different people over a long period of time have consistently drawn a blank.

So, no documentation, just predication.  In other words, no evidence in support of your categorical beliefs.

Before doing that we would need you to define, clearly and precisely, exactly what it is you think you mean by "spiritual realm," and we all know that we'll still be waiting for that this time next year.

OK, the spiritual realm is that part of reality that is not controlled by the physical realm - some like to call it the 'supernatural realm'.

[Shaker]

So, no documentation

More documentation than anybody can ever hope to provide - it's in every scientific paper in existence.

In other words, no evidence in support of your categorical beliefs.

Which categorical beliefs are these?

OK, the spiritual realm is that part of reality that is not controlled by the physical realm - some like to call it the 'supernatural realm'.

Is there such a thing? Does it exist? What methodology are you using to evaluate this alleged part of reality not controlled by the physical realm?

[Gordon]

OK, the spiritual realm is that part of reality that is not controlled by the physical realm - some like to call it the 'supernatural realm'.

The the onus is now clearly on you to first define what 'spiritual realm' means, and then present the evidence for this and the method for assessing your evidence: proper evidence mind, and not your usual mix of muddled fallacious thinking.

[Shaker]

The the onus is now clearly on you to first define what 'spiritual realm' means, and then present the evidence for this and the method for assessing your evidence: proper evidence mind, and not your usual mix of muddled fallacious thinking.

Same time, same place next year, Gord?

[Gordon]

Hi Shakes, here are your challenges for the next year. 

1) Produce reference to a scientific document, that has been peer-reviewed or otherwise validated, that shows that your belief that the physical realm is all there is, is valid?

2) Produce reference to a scientific document of the equivalent status of something like the Theory of Gravity that in any way deals with the spiritual realm.

Both of these questions are, surprise surprise, fallacious and they both assume that a 'spiritual realm' is a valid premise in the first place.

1) is essentially the negative proof fallacy yet again since it implies that science should be able to disprove this 'spiritual realm', as well as being a non sequitur and a straw man.

2) is also a non sequitur and also involves begging the question.

There may well be more fallacies lurking in here - but it is time for coffee. 

[Gordon]

Same time, same place next year, Gord?

No doubt!

[Gonnagle]

Dear World at large,

Definitions of the spiritual realm, Quantum, not that I understand it but when that Jim Al-Khalili bloke starts chuntering on about it, it certainly sounds spooky to me, another is that multi verse nonsense, come on!! that is spooky

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

More documentation than anybody can ever hope to provide - it's in every scientific paper in existence.

I've read plenty of scientific papers over the years and I have never come across an implication let alone a statement in any that science is predicated on the viewpoint that the physical realm is all there is.  Perhaps you will post a link to such a document.

If this predication really is true, could it - at least in part - explain why some scientists (though by no means all) believe that some disciplines such as pyschology/psychoanalysis, perhaps even linguistics are not really true science.

Furthermore, in view of the fact that a sizeable proportion of scientists are also people of faith, why is it necessary for science to be based on such a predication?

Which categorical beliefs are these?Is there such a thing? Does it exist? What methodology are you using to evaluate this alleged part of reality not controlled by the physical realm?

OK, we have been told by several here that science doesn't deal in right and wrong, just fact - yet society is heavily based on that concept.  If science doesn't deal in it, but it exists in reality there must be at least one part of reality that isn't controlled by the physical realm.

[Hope]

No doubt!

I was thinking the same Gordon; if Shakes keeps up his evasion tactics, I'm not sure that 'this time next year' will be long enough.

[Shaker]

I was thinking the same Gordon; if Shakes keeps up his evasion tactics, I'm not sure that 'this time next year' will be long enough.

Evasion of what? I answered your OP in reply #1. You're the one who has been asked more times than I can remember what methodology you propose to employ to evaluate claims of an alleged level of reality above/beyond the physical - this (very much alleged) "part of reality that is not controlled by the physical realm" you blether on about. That's been going on for months since you refuse to say. In other words, evasion.

Your evidence of where I've deployed the negative proof fallacy more than you as per another assertion by you - I've been waiting for that for months too. In other words, evasion.

Your evidence of the "good reasons" why homosexuality was "viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures" - Gordon, Rhiannon and I have been waiting for that one for the best part of six months. Evasion through and through.

So when it comes to evasion ...

[Enki]

Whilst this has been specifically targetted at Shakes on the 'Was Jesus Gay?" thread, I have widened its applicability here, partly so as to avoid breaking the forum rule on using posters' names in thread titles.

__________________________________________________________

Hi Shakes, here are your challenges for the next year. 

1) Produce reference to a scientific document, that has been peer-reviewed or otherwise validated, that shows that your belief that the physical realm is all there is, is valid?

2) Produce reference to a scientific document of the equivalent status of something like the Theory of Gravity that in any way deals with the spiritual realm.

Science is concerned with, and deals most effectively with the physical realm. Its methodology is based upon the physical realm, so I cannot point to a scientific document which explains any other supposed 'realm', except to explain it in terms of the physical.

However, I am quite happy to accept the possibility of a 'spiritual/supernatural realm' if and when an intersubjective method becomes available which defines and validates it. As, to date, this has not happened, I cannot see any reason for me to believe that this 'spiritual/supernatural realm' actually exists.

I cannot therefore produce reference to such a peer reviewed scientific document as you request. I would hope that you, yourself, might produce reference to one, as it is you who seem to be requesting such validation for a supposed 'spiritual/supernatural realm'. I would, of course, be happy to analyse such a document, as would the whole scientific community, I feel sure, with a critical but not a jaundiced eye.

It seems to me that a much better title to your thread would have been "A Challenge to those who believe in a Spiritual Dimension for 2016"

[jeremyp]

Hi Shakes, here are your challenges for the next year. 

1) Produce reference to a scientific document, that has been peer-reviewed or otherwise validated, that shows that your belief that the physical realm is all there is, is valid?

2) Produce reference to a scientific document of the equivalent status of something like the Theory of Gravity that in any way deals with the spiritual realm.

You never fail to disappoint me Hope with your lack of intellectual rigour.

As Shaker and others point out, point 1 is the basis of science. You won't find a scientific paper that addresses it directly because it is assumed in every single one. You claim to have read some scientific papers (yeah right). Did any of them introduce a protocol to correct for divine intervention? No. Do you know why? It is because point 1 is assumed by science.

Point 2 is ridiculous for two reasons. Firstly, the spiritual realm as alluded to by you is clearly a product of your imagination. Maybe you'll find a scientific paper about it under psychology (delusional fantasies section). Secondly, the "Theory of Gravity" was expounded in Newton's Principia and amended in Einstein's 1915 paper on General Relativity. These are possibly the two highest status scientific documents in existence. Don't set the bar too high, will you.

[Shaker]

You never fail to disappoint me Hope with your lack of intellectual rigour.

As Shaker and others point out, point 1 is the basis of science. You won't find a scientific paper that addresses it directly because it is assumed in every single one. You claim to have read some scientific papers (yeah right). Did any of them introduce a protocol to correct for divine intervention? No. Do you know why? It is because point 1 is assumed by science.

To forestall Hope's almost inevitable retort, it's assumed partly on pragmatic grounds - in short: it works - and partly on the grounds that nobody has ever once, anywhere, ever, come up with any alternative methodology to evaluate these alleged supernatural claims. Even when you ask them. J.B.S. Haldane once came up with a (fairly famous) quote in this regard, but since I know that I've posted this quote before and since I know that Hope has read it and either failed to understand it or has completely and utterly ignored it in favour of his litany of cherished logical fallacies, I don't see why I should bother to do so again.

I do love how the OP has been a textbook exercise in a ham-handed and clod-hopping attempt to shift the burden of proof, by the way.

[jeremyp]

nobody has ever once, anywhere, ever, come up with any alternative methodology to evaluate these alleged supernatural claims.

On the contrary, as he has pointed out on many occasions on this board and elsewhere, Hope has come up with such a methodology and he has published it here and elsewhere in the past.

There's only three possibilities:

• He is lying
• He has no understanding of what "evidence" or "methodology" means and is deluded
• He is telling the truth

Either Hope is Liar, Lunatic or Telling the Truth (couldn't be bothered to think up a decent alliteration for the last one). If we apply the methodology of the Unpalatable Falsehood (we can dismiss anything we don't like on the grounds that it would make somebody cry), then he must be telling the truth.

[Shaker]

On the contrary, as he has pointed out on many occasions on this board and elsewhere, Hope has come up with such a methodology and he has published it here and elsewhere in the past.

Yes yes yes, but that tends to get removed by the mods/admin. so you can't actually chase it up. It's a matter of faith, I tell you, the substance of things not seen (by any bugger).

[Red Giant]

OK, we have been told by several here that science doesn't deal in right and wrong, just fact - yet society is heavily based on that concept.  If science doesn't deal in it, but it exists in reality there must be at least one part of reality that isn't controlled by the physical realm.

The concept of right and wrong is a psychological phenomenon and can be studied accordingly.  Child development experts can no doubt tell you the stages a child goes through in progressing from simplistic to sophisticated morality.

Psychopathy has also been studied a lot.

Apart from that, experimenting on adult morality is a bit fraught.  But experiments have been done - the one with the pretend electric shocks, the runaway truck and the points, etc. 

Of course we like to pretend that morality is absolute and not just what we think it is.  But that preference is itself a psychological phenomenon, as is our taste for delusions in general.

But the claim that absolute morality exists is vacuous, and science can't do anything with that.

Actually I'm coming to the conclusion that what you call the physical realm is the set of non-vacuous propositions and what you call the supernatural realm is the set of vacuous propositions.  On that basis I'll agree that both exist.

[splashscuba]

OK, the spiritual realm is that part of reality that is not controlled by the physical realm - some like to call it the 'supernatural realm'.

I don't believe there is a supernatural realm.

If you want me to believe in one you are going to have to convince me.

Use any method you want.

[Shaker]

I don't believe there is a supernatural realm.

If you want me to believe in one you are going to have to convince me.

Use any method you want.

Looking forward to that!

[Hope]

I don't believe there is a supernatural realm.

If you want me to believe in one you are going to have to convince me.

Use any method you want.

Well, I've already mentioned a number of issues aspects of life that scientists - including some here - claim that science does not deal with, such as right and wrong. 

[jeremyp]

Well, I've already mentioned a number of issues aspects of life that scientists - including some here - claim that science does not deal with, such as right and wrong.

So you think morality is supernatural. Do you have any evidence of that?

[Leonard James]

Well, I've already mentioned a number of issues aspects of life that scientists - including some here - claim that science does not deal with, such as right and wrong.

That is because the "right and wrong" of moral arguments are human concepts for which there is no scientific evidence.

[Outrider]

I've read plenty of scientific papers over the years and I have never come across an implication let alone a statement in any that science is predicated on the viewpoint that the physical realm is all there is.  Perhaps you will post a link to such a document.

It's pretty much the definition of science - people who write scientific papers presume that the reader already understands (erroneously, it seems) what science is about.

If this predication really is true, could it - at least in part - explain why some scientists (though by no means all) believe that some disciplines such as pyschology/psychoanalysis, perhaps even linguistics are not really true science.

Linguistics is not a science - it's not involved in the study of natural phenomena. Psychology is a questionable science not wholly because of the founding principles but rather because of the difficulty of isolating elements of the psyche in order to study adequately and because the level of observation is not at the same order as the observable phenomena (psychological observations are of behaviour, which are complex result of the neurological activity).

Furthermore, in view of the fact that a sizeable proportion of scientists are also people of faith, why is it necessary for science to be based on such a predication?

That's what science is. You'd be as well asking why Christianity is based on the predication of accepting the existence of Jesus.

OK, we have been told by several here that science doesn't deal in right and wrong, just fact - yet society is heavily based on that concept.  If science doesn't deal in it, but it exists in reality there must be at least one part of reality that isn't controlled by the physical realm.

No, the morality and ethics is controlled by the physical realm - however, the level of complexity is such that there are no simple ways to calculate output from the known inputs. It's like a significantly more difficult version of weather prediction.

O.

[Hope]

No, the morality and ethics is controlled by the physical realm - ...

If that's the case, you'll be able to provide evidence for it.