A Review of The Magic of Reality

[Manwë Súlimo]

Friendship is Magic.

[firstfloor]

Can you scientifically demonstrate then that there is no world of spirits since this is a conclusion you claim to reach through science?

You cannot prove a negative – e.g. prove that there is not a golden teapot buried by an ancient space-faring civilisation below the surface of the moon. People have looked for things like mind reading, ghosts, telekinesis and the like and found nothing. I would say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The test I would use is, does the thing fit with what else you know and what do you have to reject to make it fit? This works because a true thing will never invalidate another true thing.

[firstfloor]

Can you scientifically demonstrate then that there is no world of spirits since this is a conclusion you claim to reach through science?

I do not think that I claimed that to be a scientific claim. I am fairly sure it is not.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I do not think that I claimed that to be a scientific claim. I am fairly sure it is not.

It all boils down to whether you think there are things in the universe that are not subject to the laws of nature. The fact that many of our ancestors thought that there was and wrote stories about gods and angels is unconvincing in this scientific age.

I figured since you brought up that this is the case in a scientific age, I figured science should have some explanatory power there to show that there are no spirits. I was hoping you could scientifically demonstrate that.

Also, you can prove negatives. Note the following statement.

"You cannot prove a negative."

This is a negative. If you can prove it, then you can prove a negative.

If you cannot prove it, then it could be possible to prove a negative.

But if you cannot prove it as the claim says then it could be possible to prove a negative.

But on the other hand, you sure seem to place a lot of stock in a principle that by its own definition can't be proven.

[Rational Gaze]

Great review, Nick.

By the way, have you considered reviewing The Greatest Show on Earth at all?

[Manwë Súlimo]

"You can't prove a negative" made as an absolute statement is just stupid. I can prove no Jews have been elected president or that there is no dwarf star in my pocket. You can prove there is no such thing as deity or such a thing as a spiritual reality if you can prove that they are somehow logically incoherent.

Furthermore, I've noticed for awhile now that people like firstfloor who put science on a pedestal are usual the guys that don't even understand it. Science by it's very nature is incapable of making truth claims on matters of the immaterial world or claims that are metaphysical in nature. Any scientist should be able to tell you this. It's like using a barometer to change a tire - you're using the wrong tool.

[firstfloor]

I figured since you brought up that this is the case in a scientific age, I figured science should have some explanatory power there to show that there are no spirits. I was hoping you could scientifically demonstrate that.

It is more the case that things like earthquakes, for example, which in ancient times were attributed to gods and the like, have better modern explanations. If you think that spirits exist or might exist then you should at least have some phenomenon in mind. I do not know of any.

[firstfloor]

"You can't prove a negative" made as an absolute statement is just stupid. I can prove no Jews have been elected president or that there is no dwarf star in my pocket. You can prove there is no such thing as deity or such a thing as a spiritual reality if you can prove that they are somehow logically incoherent.

Furthermore, I've noticed for awhile now that people like firstfloor who put science on a pedestal are usual the guys that don't even understand it. Science by it's very nature is incapable of making truth claims on matters of the immaterial world or claims that are metaphysical in nature. Any scientist should be able to tell you this. It's like using a barometer to change a tire - you're using the wrong tool.

I am not so sure - It is conceivable that a Jew was elected but you don’t know about it and there are no records for you to look up. What I am saying is that it is impossible by use of logic alone to prove that something does not exist. If parameters are well defined, as your examples, a rigorous search could give a high level of confidence that the thing was absent. Is that proof?
I agree that the scientific method is a tool – it happens to be the best one we have for finding things out.

[Manwë Súlimo]

What I am saying is that it is impossible by use of logic alone to prove that something does not exist.

If I told you that I had a brother who was a married bachelor, you could immediately disprove my claim with logic because it's logically contradictory. And logic was the only tool I used.

I agree that the scientific method is a tool – it happens to be the best one we have for finding things out.

Is it the best tool for every situation? Okay. Use science to explain the American Revolution and why the colonists rebelled.

[firstfloor]

If I told you that I had a brother who was a married bachelor, you could immediately disprove my claim with logic because it's logically contradictory. And logic was the only tool I used..

If the claim is absurd in its own terms it can be disregarded without resort to logic.

Is it the best tool for every situation? Okay. Use science to explain the American Revolution and why the colonists rebelled.

No. That's for historians, not scientists.
Do you really not know the answers to these questions? Are you trying to wind me up?

[Manwë Súlimo]

If the claim is absurd in its own terms it can be disregarded without resort to logic.

It's absurd BECAUSE of logic!

Do you really not know the answers to these questions? Are you trying to wind me up?

You said science is the best tool to answer these metaphysical questions of God, despite the clear absurdity of using science, a tool used to explain material, empirical questions, to answer metaphysics, which is neither material or empirical. The point I was getting at is that science is only A tool not THE tool and sometimes should not even be in the freaking toolbag, if the question doesn't avail itself to scientific scrutiny.

[lilpixieofterror]

You cannot prove a negative – e.g. prove that there is not a golden teapot buried by an ancient space-faring civilisation below the surface of the moon. People have looked for things like mind reading, ghosts, telekinesis and the like and found nothing. I would say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The test I would use is, does the thing fit with what else you know and what do you have to reject to make it fit? This works because a true thing will never invalidate another true thing.

What a bunch of nonsense because if you can't prove a negitive, does that mean you can not prove that 2+2=5 is wrong?

[Jedidiah]

I am a little disappointed. Notice that firstfloor did not claim that science was the best tool in every situation, or for every purpose. He has been polite as far as I have seen. He did not even bring science into the thread. I suggest polite discussion until fl begins being unpleasant. We can use another polite atheist here.

Science is the best tool for learning about the universe. It is useless in examining anything not a part of the universe. Does anyone disagree with that claim?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

It is more the case that things like earthquakes, for example, which in ancient times were attributed to gods and the like, have better modern explanations. If you think that spirits exist or might exist then you should at least have some phenomenon in mind. I do not know of any.

Could you show where this was done in the OT and the NT?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Great review, Nick.

By the way, have you considered reviewing The Greatest Show on Earth at all?

Haven't even read it. Really, I'm not a macroevolutionist, but that debate just doesn't interest me. I think it's a shame that we're figthing that battle when it is at the least a very very secondary one. It moves us from metaphysics to science. Science can give inductive arguments at best. Metaphysical arguments are more deductive and far more convincing.