Clutch

Tercel, Mm-hm. Sorry, I'll try to be more like this: Something about glass houses comes to mind here... but whine away if you please.
Yes, it didn't occur to me that this line of thought was intended to distinguish your methodology from the Gods of the Gaps, rather than precisely indicating your commitment to it. The GG methodology --or is it a condition? -- can almost be defined as the belief that one has the ability to identify a phenomenon immune to all possible naturalistic explanation, including those not yet discovered or even dreamt of. But that's you; you really think that you can "know what is natural and know that this isn't it." You've got the same old God of the Gaps, here, with just some extra bombast thrown in.

Pop quiz, true or false:

(1) Our conception of what is naturally explicable changes on an ongoing basis as we refine, revise, reject and replace elements of our science.

(2) There is no way of predicting a priori what will be explicable naturalistically in light of data not yet sampled and theories not yet formulated.

(3) The God of the Gaps methodology confuses what is not naturally explicable by our current means for what it is not naturally explicable in principle.

You do the math.

E_muse

Therefore it would seem wise to refrain from dogmatism. Or the assumption that scientific explanations replace theistic ones.

And therefore it would seem erroneous to insist a priori that all events must have a purely naturalistic explanation without comitting the same error. Especially events that science have been unable to investigate.

Only if belief in God rests upon a form of scientific agnosticism.

E_muse

This seems to suggest an a priori disbelief of religious reports is necessary. Guilty unless proven innocent. This seems prejudiced to me and could lead one to reject religious claims simply on the grounds of personal credulity.

I recently heard of a man who kidded his wife and entire neighbourhood that he had won the lottery. Millions of pounds. He got so caught up in the lie that he became trapped in it.. and everyone believed him.

Eventually his lie was exposed and he was found to be a liar.

But does this example mean that everyone who claims to have won the lottery is therefore a liar? Of course not. Each claim must be investigated on its own merits with an open mind and then a judgement made.

Charlatans exist, no doubt.. but to tar everyone with the same brush simply because they hold a religious conviction seems totally unfair.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Clutch

(1) Our conception of what is naturally explicable changes on an ongoing basis as we refine, revise, reject and replace elements of our science.
Your first statement is correct; in effect, when we don't know, we ought to say we don't know. But "We don't know" does not mean "It was supernatural", right? Since that's the application that supernatural pseudo-explanation receives, it ends up being a label for, and not an alternative to, the admission that we have no explanation.

You second statement makes no sense to me. What "theistic explanations" are you talking about? Why do you care what people assume, so long as they only offer warranted explanations in the event?

(2) There is no way of predicting a priori what will be explicable naturalistically in light of data not yet sampled and theories not yet formulated. Again, your first claim is correct. But nobody claims this a priori, to my knowledge. (Maybe you could quote some sources?) Surely it's an a posteriori claim, based on inductive evidence from the thousands of instances of unexplained and (that is, including) supernaturally "explained" phenomena which have since been explained naturalistically. This does not logically establish the naturalistic explicability of all phenomena -- nor more than any current evidence establishes the logical necessity of the sun's rising tomorrow, to steal Hume's hoary example. Nope, it just gives overwhelming but defeasible reason to think so.

(3) The God of the Gaps methodology confuses what is not naturally explicable by our current means for what it is not naturally explicable in principle. Huh? This is a complete non-sequitur. I pointed out what the GG mistake is. That it is that mistake has nothing to do with what "belief in God" (yours? everyone's? the ideal?) might otherwise rest on.

Pomp

Tercel,

I don't think that your methodology gives an acurate answer to the question I asked: how can we tell that a given event is, in principle, unexplainable by methodological naturalism? You say, first:

1) that the event contradicts our current knowledge of the natural.

All right, this is an obvious first criterion. If we could explain it now, it would be explainable in principle. The door is still open for a future natural explanation, though, so let's see what else you've got.

You've noted that these other two criteria are "useful," by which I assume you mean not necessary? Can you clarify? If these are not necessary then 1), apparantly, can stand alone in your view. As 1) is just standard God of the Gaps material, I'm not sure that you're actually saying what I think you're saying.

2) the occurance of the event inside a religious context (eg the instantaneously healed person was being prayed for at the time)

This criterion threatens circularity. You're asking me, a methodological naturalist, to acccept your assumption that events which occur in "a religious context" are more likely to be influenced by non-natural causes than events which do not. I'll need some evidence before I accept that claim. What sort of evidence? Why, a study showing that past supernatural events occurred more frequently in religious contexts than in nonreligious contexts. How do you generate that list? Using the criteria you are currently making a case for, of course, including the criterion about religious contexts.

In short, this criterion only works if we presuppose a religious worldview.

3) unrepeatability.

Or, the inability to gather further data. Need an event be absolutely unrepeatable, or simply unreliably repeatable? For example, does faith healing count as a supernatural event because it doesn't reliably follow from prayer, or is it natural because it has occurred more than once? I'm going to assume the former for now, as it seems more compatible with mainstream Christian thought.

As an illustrative example, can you please critique this line of reasoning:

1) The tribe has no understanding of any natural causes for rain.
2) Rain often follows the ritual rain dances that the tribe performs.
3) Rain is "unrepeatable" in the sense that the tribe cannot reliably summon it up by performing the rain dance, similar to the way a faith healer cannot reliably heal the faithful by prayer.

Therefore, the tribe can reasonably conclude that rain is, in principle, unexplainable by any natural process.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

HRG

Let's not forget one thing: winning the lottery is not against natural laws, and lottery wins are regularly observed.

The essential differences between claims of lottery wins and claims of resurrections should be obvious.

Regards,
HRG.

britinusa

Tercel, E-muse and other theists seem to be under the delusion that we should treat the natural & supernatural with equal respect, but never explain why. As I recently stated in the OP of <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000272" target="_blank">this</a> thread, too many atheists are put on the defensive by xians complaining about hardline Humean attitudes towards the supernatural, but again, why? Personally, I have no problem with categorically rejecting miracle claims. People cannot walk on water. Period. Decomposing corpses cannot spring back to life. Period. If Tercel and his fellow xians want to call me dogmatic, fine. I won't lose any sleep over it.
Just compare the track records of naturalism and supernaturalism. Just think of the countless thousands of phenomena once (lets say 2000 years ago) considered supernatural, but now considered natural. Can any xian provide us with just ONE example of a phenomenon once considered natural but now considered supernatural?
We should NOT give naturalism and supernaturalism equal respect. We should treat the supernatural with the respect it deserves, that is, with ZERO respect.
[Edited by Me coz I can't type for shit]

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: britinusa ]</p>

E_muse

It depends upon what we establish as our basis of 'knowing'. Whether we limit what we can know to that which can be apprehended by the senses or not.

For example, if we feel that we 'know' something that has not come to us via our senses, that is later confirmed through our senses then it would seem logical to conclude that the initial knowledge was received 'supernaturally'. In other words, natural in the sense that we commonly and regularly understand it.

By saying that something has a supernatural cause clearly the claimant is not saying that they don't know - but that they do know. You're saying that only knowledge received via the senses is viable.

Saying that we do not know the physical relationships which lead to an event is not the same as saying that attempted theistic explanations are invalid.

You also seem to be saying that we only 'know' that which is articulable through human speech as we must be able to defend our experiences through logical arguement - which is the essence of scientific explanation. I would suggest that experience transcends that which we are able to defend logically through our own articulation.

To say, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...", is not the same as seeking to describe causal physical relationships within that creation. They are two different levels of explanation but can merge.

Secondly, I'm not sure that all subjective experiences can be defended in an articulatitive manner. Taste for example.

Well, here's a quote from Lewontin:

This statement must be taken because of the nature of the scientific method.

Are you sure about that?

This (in my mind) seems to prove that experience transcends logical or naturalistic explicability. We accept things and expect things to happen on the basis of our experience.

I think that we probably agree on this. I also hold that the 'God of the gaps' is false theologically.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

Firstly, a lottery win (jackpot), is highly improbable.

More important though, it was claimed above that there are many claims to witnessed resurrections too - from across many different philisophical persuasions.

However, it seems to have been suggested that we should reject the claims of religious people a priori.

We therefore do not know that people returning from the dead is not against natural law. It's just interesting that it seems to happen in a religious context - well that's the claim - I would dispute that!

If it is found to genuinely happen then it probably isn't against natural law. This could mean that there is a scientific explanation for it too. This is because all observed supernatural phenomena manifest on the physical level. Whilst the phenomena is rejected a priori, such explanations will never be found.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

Well, I suppose that on the intuative level I'm a theist, but intellectually agnostic.

As for your second point - I think that there's a need to allow the debate to develop. Nobody presents their arguements all in one go!

If theists choose to believe that a piece of ancient cloth is the burial cloth of Christ - perhaps out of some sentimental attachment - this does not disprove every claim to the supernatural or miraculous. Each claim must be investigated on its own merits.

In fact, the shroud seems to have no supernatural quality to it to make it worth arguing over.

This is an arguement from personal credulity and makes no statement that validates whether each claim is based on fact or not. I do have a problem categorically rejecting them - so what? It's the facts that matter.

I would say that people walking on water and coming back to life is hard to believe and improbable - but that is different from categorically stating that it cannot happen. To do that, I would have to be claiming some form of omniscience. That such things are impossible in an absolute sense based upon my own finite experience of life. I try and steer away from such arrogance.

However, I fully accept that some claims such as these are fraudulent.

Well, I'd probably say it even if you did. But you are only expressing personal opinion.

I won't take the fact that you are secure in your own belief system as meaning that it must therefore be based on fact.

Some examples would be good here.

I'm not sure I'm with you. In Biblical terms, the world has always been considered natural - but a supernatural occurence. Governed by natural law, but the product of something beyond itself. It's hard to put into words.

Well, this is your personal opinion, but I don't think you should be telling others how they should respond. Credit them with intelligence and let them respond for themselves. This is a free thought forum.

Of course your attitude seems to result in an a priori rejection of miraculous claims once again.
[Edited by Me coz I can't type for shit]

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>