madmax2976

Hello Andrew, I'm one of those atheists who couldn't care less about naturalism. To me it is just a label, and one that theists often hide behind in order to have something to attack. I'm far more interested in any claim you might make that "something else" exists or "something unusual" has occurred - I really don't care how you label it.

At their core, labels like materialism and naturalism, physical, non-physical, supernaturalism, immaterialism, are all very hard to define.

I tend to think that if "other" entities or energies exist and can perform certain feats we call miraculous then it would be perfectly natural for them to do so. Thus they are not unnatural in a strict manner of speaking.

So, drop the labels, present your evidence for any claims you might wish to make, and we'll be happy to critique it.

Panta Pei

Hello...is this thing on

After all of this concocted mental construct has been debated, there still is no evidence of the supernatural.

It was all pretend.

The natural universe is in evidence before you at this very moment. Reality is something that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.

There are no anthropocentric Gods.

Thanks for stopping by

Get real and keep it simple ~ Steve

scigirl

My assessment of these medical examples is this:

1. Humans think they know everything.
2. Humans can't figure out why X went to Y.
3. Then clearly, X --> Y is unexplainable, and therefore God Did It.

Attributing miracles to a higher being is really just a manifestation of human arrogance.

The answer to the original problem is this: Some things we just can't explain yet. To attribute them to a supernatural being is to completely ignore the fact that many things we used to attribute to a supernatural being have been explained.

I'm with Mad Kally. Show me a decapitated man who lives, and I'll believe in a supernatural force. But I still won't believe it's the Christian God.

scigirl

joedad

Maybe you just need to back away far enough from this thread and see supernaturalism for what it is.

Andrew_theist's hypothetical scenario is, that's ISthe extent of the existence of the supernatural. What could be more obvious?

This thread is, that's IS again, the evidence, in total, for the existence of miracles and all things supernatural, constituting in effect the practice of supernaturalism, and demonstrating its existence. There is nothing more to supernaturalism than what you read about it here.

In short, this thread isn't an inquiry into the supernatural, it's an example of it.

Understand now? Hopefully?

joe

Jayhawker Soule

Thank you for sharing, but maybe you just need to back away far enough from this thread and see your lecture for what it is. As an atheist for more than three decades, I have little need for pedantry.

I indicated that I found the question both legitimate and thought provoking. Feel free to agree or disagree. I indicated that my default response to a substantiated "miracle" would be the presumption of "An unusual event with an unknown natural cause." Again, feel free to agree or disagree. Thanks ...

joedad

Okay. Very, very sorry. Honestly thought you didn't understand. My apologies.

joe

Koyaanisqatsi

What a shock. Yet another example of circuitous thinking.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

Thanks for all the responses. First to the idea there was some major deceit in my post I say give me a break. Right from the start I indicated this was a hypothetical.

What if I provided a medical case of a broken leg that healed in one day, sworn by 4 doctors and I had notarized x-rays (before and after) that I would submit to this board for examination and link for all to see?

I won’t belabor the issue since most of the respondents realized this. I also appreciated those who responded candidly not knowing for sure if I was going to produce such evidence or not. I noticed those who demanded to know one way or the other would not submit an opinion without knowing. As I mentioned this didn’t have to be a miracle worked by God merely a demonstration of an event that seemed to refute the philosophy of naturalism. I am fairly confident that in the annals of history there have been well-documented cases of extraordinary events that defy conventional materialistic explanation. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a natural explanation, but without knowing for certain how can it be ruled out? I think most people have had a personal experience that would be difficult to attribute to natural causes alone and as a result even in an age of enlightenment and cutting edge technology the majority still think there is more to the universe than mere matter in motion alone.

You need evidence, not hypothetical evidence, and there isn't any evidence anywhere for the existence of the supernatural.

You are suggesting in order to believe something you must have proof, not mere evidence. One point of this thread is to show that there is a very strong belief in naturalism even when evidence to the contrary exists. Secondly that many believe in naturalism without subjecting it to the same skepticism they apply to theism. An example as it stands right now there is no evidence that natural forces can bootstrap themselves into existence. This may someday have a naturalistic explanation but in the meantime it is believed a naturalistic explanation will come forth. Why? Because there is a belief in naturalism even though it has not been proved either. The upshot is to refute the idea that when atheists say their atheism is due to a lack of evidence I think a far more reaching dynamic is at work. More than a lack of belief in atheism it is a show of great confidence in naturalism and an unwillingness to subject the claims of naturalism or materialism to the same healthy skepticism applied to theism. In fact though many atheists characterize themselves as being open minded and objective in reality they defend the belief system of naturalism to almost preposterous degree (invoking aliens for instance) while rejecting any other explanation as even possible. Is this the signature of open mindedness?

My conclusion is that the schism between theists and atheists is more of competing beliefs systems than one side merely having a lack of evidence. Is there anything wrong with that? Not at all I freely admit that theism is a belief or worldview. The only problem I see is when someone convince themselves they have no underlying belief system but they are genuinely objective reviewers of fact and persuaded by that alone. In so doing they become less objective because they are taking no precautions against the influence of belief. Because I realize I am a believer I am actually quite skeptical of claims of miraculous healings and so forth. My reasons for being a theist are conservative.

[b]Maybe the challenge from Andrew is along the lines of "how open is your mind?" I.e., how willing are you to admit the way you see things and interpret things might be fundamentally wrong? His position all along seems to be that we are not atheists merely because we discern a lack of evidence for anything like deities, but more broadly, that we are committed to a naturalistic worldview, and therefore are going to do everything we can to look for naturalistic explanations (even for fantastic or "miraculous" events), and also to discount the supernatural. Andrew, am I correct in representing your position? [b]

That sums it up nicely.

If I am correct, then we are not dealing merely with an assessment of evidence (how can we, when Andrew has as of yet produced none?), but more broadly with Andrew's implicit challenge that most of us atheists are close-minded to the point that even if we would be presented with the most overt evidence imaginable, we still wouldn't be able to see the forest for the trees. So to speak.

I am suggesting that virtually any evidence a natural explanation could be conjured. Or one could say it is a natural unknown event. Which is merely a fundamental profession of naturalism.

He may claim to have "evidence" but disdain the producing of it, on the thesis that we're going to dismiss it anyhow, on the grounds that our "worldviews" have built into them an a priori rejection of all things godly or supernatural. Judging from his prior posts, I wouldn't rule this out as his possible upcoming route. The other route I can imagine him taking is in presenting the evidence, and when rejected, questioned, or receiving an ambiguous response to it, he can say "A-ha! This verifies what I've been asserting all along -- no evidence is good enough for you atheists! You are all committed to a worldview in which there is no God, and more, no God is even possible to you!"

Not so much that you are going to dismiss it but almost certainly you already have. You could say I am paying you a compliment and assuming you have done your homework and have already examined the most frequently employed evidence for theism and found it lacking. Okay I will provide one very conservative example. I believe free will exists and that we are creatures who act volitionally as free moral agents. If this is true it means we have the ability to operate apart from being subject only to the laws of random forces, physics or chemical reactions. Our ability to choose not to eat while starving is an example of an immaterial force operating in the universe. From having brought this point out on my own website I have already seen the convoluted gyrations atheists espouse to convince others (or maybe just themselves) that volitional will doesn’t really exist and in reality we are all like marionettes being jerked by strings and reacting to stimuli in a complex but unknown way. There is no evidence that freewill doesn’t exist. There is an abundance of evidence to indicate it does exist. So it can’t possibly be just a lack of evidence. Yet the only people I have ever known to argue against it are atheists. Why? Because it is a thorn poking a hole in the belief system of naturalism.

I know there have been many alleged "miracles" out there, and so forth; some hoaxes, some still unexplanable... But call it an increased awareness of human gullibility, fear, desire for security, and also human duplicity... Whatever it is, in some ambiguous way, it has made me distrustful of all things spiritual and supernatural. A couple of flim-flams and snake-oil salesmen don't mean all prophets are frauds, I know... But what I see and live in is a natural world, full of some things we understand and some things we don't, and a few charismatic speakers and old scriptures that claim to have the secret revelations to connect us with the supernatural, and all we have to do is trust them, and everthing will be alright.

I can’t argue too much here because all of the things you have said are true. There are a lot of snake-oil salesmen and the adage buyer beware is still sage advice. And they come in secular clothing as well. Both theists and non-theist drummed up the Y2K issue into a frenzy. Communism (in my opinion) is a wretched philosophy that promised bread and land and delivered tyranny and oppression. Unquestionably there are religious leaders who are bilking people out of money. I think skepticism is healthy. I think selective skepticism leads to cynicism. Someone wrote you should leave your mind open enough to freely examine new ideas and closed enough so you’re brains don’t fall out.

<a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Andrew_theist ]</p>

Mad Kally

Intelligent freethinker: So you still believe in miracles?

Cult member: Yes, blah blah blah ad infinitum..

Howay the Toon

Andrew-Theist is effectively trying to establish that atheism is just as unfalsifiable as theism because there will always be a potential natural explanation for apparently divinely inspired events. Even if the potential explanation involves super-powerful aliens, or some unknown rewrite to the laws of physics.

He's right of course.

However, all this means is that the question "is there a God?" becomes entirely meaningless since it is devoid of any explanatory power. Any conceivable state of affairs is consistent with both "God" and "not God".

Which renders the whole of religion and theology somewhat pointless, don't you think. It also creates for more problems for believers than for us infidels. The reason is that theists base their worldview and beliefs far more on the existence of God than atheists do on the non-existence of God.

Atheists do not on the whole think along the lines of "God doesn't exist, therefore I will act/believe/ in this way" They just ignore the issue and decide for themselves.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Howay the Toon! ]</p>