Lets take a little break from politics and have us a real atheist conversation.
Personally, I’m open to the idea of the existence of supernatural phenomena, and I believe mainstream religions are actually complicated incomplete stories full of misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and half-truths.
Basically, I think that these stories are not as simple and straightforward as they seem to be to religious people. I feel like there is a lot more to them. Concluding that all these stories are just made up or came out of nowhere is kind of hard for me.
What constitues “something scientific”? That sounds fascinating.
There’s a whole crap tonne about the universe we really don’t understand yet; especially when you get down to the quantum level, spooky action at a distance, wave functions, etc…
In a very real way, we’re still just cavemen banging on rocks as far as the sum total knowledge of how things work out there in what we call “reality”. So within that vast gap of what we know, and what we don’t know, there’s could be a lot of things going on.
Is that a ghost? or is that a momentary glitch in the fabric of space-time? Or is it just someone mistaking a cars headlight bouncing of a chandelier and into a door that is ajar at just the right angle. One of those theories is provable using the scientific method and the knowledge that we currently have. One of those theories might eventually be able to be proven with knowledge that we don’t yet possess. And one of those theories is so-called “supernatural”.
As a reasonable human with critical thinking skills, I’ll put my money on either of the last ones before I’ll put my money on the first.
There is no “spooky action at a distance.” We know quantum mechanics does not contain anything that violates the speed of light limit because this is a requirement for special relativity, and quantum mechanics is mathematically compatible with special relativity. The unification of the two theories is known as quantum field theory. There is a proof called the No-communication Theory that shows that there is nothing you could ever do to a particle in an entangled pair that would alter the state of the particle it is entangled with. There is no actual “nonlocal” (faster-than-light) effects between them.
Claims that there is some sort of nonlocal effects either come from bizarre philosophical arguments where you (for some reason) claim that the wave function represents a literal physical entity floating out there in an infinitely dimensional space whereby the observer effect causes it to “collapse” like a house of cards into a single particle (this is just pure fantasy, nothing in the mathematics of the theory demands you believe this), or it comes from people misunderstanding Bell’s theorem and believing it proves the universe has nonlocal effects, when Bell’s theorem only shows that if you add hidden variables to quantum mechanics then you must introduce nonlocal effects. Since quantum mechanics is not a hidden variable theory, there is no need for nonlocal effects.
The wave function can be used to pick a value from a list of probability amplitudes, and this list of probability amplitudes is called the state vector. The state vector has a probability amplitude for each possible outcome, and each probability amplitude is related to the likelihood of a particular possible outcome occurring. Quantum mechanics assumes nature behaves fundamentally randomly, so the best you can do is make statistical predictions in terms of probabilities.
There doesn’t need to be a “deeper” explanation. It’s like the kid who always asks “why.” There can’t always be an answer to the question. Eventually you just have to shrug your shoulders and say, “it is what it is.” Otherwise, you get an infinite regress. You have to stop somewhere, and it makes sense to me to stop at our most fundamental scientific theories. Sure, “there could be a lot of things going on,” there could be a clown hiding your cupboards, I could be the King of England talking to you right now. Vaguely speculating on how something “could” be possible does not actually, in and of itself, make it reasonable to believe it in it.
Of course, it is always possible all our theories are wrong and get overturned in a major way, but actually believing it is wrong would require an enormous amount of evidence. I stick to interpreting the natural world based on what our best scientific theories for the time tell us. Even if it turns out to be wrong, such as with Newtonian mechanics, well, Newton still had a much more accurate understanding of nature than someone who bases their understanding of nature off of nothing. The fact our theories could potentially be proven wrong is not a good reason to believe in total unjustified nonsense. Whatever you believe in should be well-substantiated by the evidence.
The fact our theories could potentially be wrong, I do not think this is good justification for resorting to pure utilitarianism either, as if we should refuse to ever interpret the natural world because any interpretation has the potential to change one day. Pure utilitarians just treat scientific theories as merely predictive tools, but do not say anything about nature. I prefer to just say we should embrace the change. My understanding of nature is dependent upon our best scientific theories for the time. If, in a thousand years, there is a breakthrough that changes this, I would have still had a better understanding of nature than someone who based their beliefs off of something different than the natural sciences. If that breakthrough happens tomorrow, well, I’d be happy to change my mind. It’s not an issue.
“Provable”? Nah. I prefer “useful”.
This desire for “Truth” is strange to me. I see no necessary connection between ideas and phenomena.
Lies can be useful. They cal also be dangerous.
Preferring possible usefulness to truth is alarming.
That’s fair enough. You’re welcome to live however you want to. I’m just explaining the difference between science and mysticism. It’s not going to affect the average person’s life in any fashion whether they believe in ghosts or not; they’ll still go to work, buy groceries, get old and die.
But the rejection of science leads inexorably down to a path where a cult of ignorance starts to form; where those who aren’t intellectually curious but still want to have an opinion on stuff start to think that their opinion is just as valid as actual facts. And we see what happens when that kind of willful ignorance works its way into the public discourse.
In short, you’re welcome to not differentiate between ideas and actual scientific phenomena. But someone has to, because society only functions when decisions are made by people who share the same basic knowledge of reality.
I’m not rejecting science. I think it’s fine.
What is a “scientific phenomenon”?
Something that is able to potentially be explained by following the scientific method.
That covers all phenomena, surely
What is useful for me may not be useful for you. It may be useful for me to tell some sort of slanderous lie about you to all of your neighbors. I assume you would desire the truth in that sort of situation.
That is why truth is more important than utility. Utility is subjective. Truth is not.