Re-stating your opinions does not magically turn them into facts, sorry.
Jack Preston King
1

I’ve been stating my case. You just aren’t really interested in hearing it. You seem to believe that there’s something useful to be found in spirituality, apart from the internal soothing effects that it has on some (but by no means all) people. If that were true, we would absolutely know it by now. Unfortunately for your position, the external effects allegedly produced by spiritual means are indistinguishable from random chance. The Frogger scenario is not at all analogous, because there is a threshold beyond which frogs almost certainly die. This is a clear cause and effect, even if the means are unknown. My point is just exactly this: there is no such evident cause and effect when it comes to spirituality. If there were, science would be all over it, because that’s what science does — try to figure out how an evident cause and effect works.

This is not an opinion. It is a fact. If this were not the case, you would not be asking scientifically-minded people to help you find the cause and effect relationship you so desperately want to find, because such cause and effect relationships would be obvious, just as the Frogger highway effect is completely obvious. Unfortunately for you, external spiritual effects are thoroughly not obvious, and in fact, seem to be indistinguishable from random chance. Despite this, and your apparent lack of awareness of the efforts made on your behalf, scientists have looked and continue to look, just as you are asking. They have never found any mechanism because they have never found any cause and effect relationship stemming from spirituality, apart from internal brain effects. Without any effects to point to, what are they supposed to investigate? Nobody is asking you to figure out any mechanism of spiritual action outside the body. But if you can’t even name some reliable cause and effect relationship that needs to be investigated, then you’re not even asking for anything.

I don’t think I can make this any clearer. If you want science to take spirituality seriously, you need to point to scenarios in which spirituality can dependably cause effects. It really could be anything. The bar is very low. Just point it out and claim your Nobel Prize in physics.

And this is why scientific materialism persists and can’t be refuted. It works. It finds answers. It is dependable. It is, in short, the only means of expanding human knowledge. Why? Because all the other ways that have been tried for the last several thousand years have turned up bupkis. After all this investigation, there is really only one possible reason for that: there’s nothing to turn up, besides what is in the material universe, tractable to the methods of scientific materialism. Your Frogger example in no way refutes that. Nothing else really can refute that, because without a cause and effect relationship, what are you even talking about?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.