Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gary Welsh · 03-22-2003, 04:22 PM

We rule out the supernatural because it's implausible.

Some scientists have said that the supernatural is outside the bounds of what science can study or examine. That's just a polite way of saying it's implausible.

We only seriously consider explanations we find plausible. If you lose a sock in your drier, you don't consider that maybe the laundry gnomes stole it. You may not ABSOLUTELY rule that possibility out, but it's not something you're going to seriously consider. The same applies to gods, ghosts, aliens, leprechauns, ad infinitum. Any one of these hypothetical entities might exist, according to anecdotal evidence (i.e. "stories people tell"). But scientists are mostly interested in stuff we can see, measure, experiment on, etc.

A good analogy is the Cartesian Doubt. You might be deluded by a malevolent genie of great powers: the objective world as you think it is, may not really exist -- it may all be an illusion made by this malevolent genie to trick you... There's no way you can disprove this possibility. The modern version of this was given in the movie, "The Matrix." The malevolent genie was replaced with a computer, and the illusion was a virtual reality world that all human minds were placed in. As long as the illusion is perfect, and there is no one from "outside of it" to reveal it to you, there is no way you can detect it. That could be the situation you are in, right now. This was Descartes' point. You can't be absolutely sure something like this isn't the case. You can't rule it out, with absolute certainty. Yet, you can reasonably rule it out, on the basis of it being implausible.

In the case of supernatural (or psuedoscientific) claims, the much more plausible explanations are psychological rather than physical. If someone claims to you that a god spoke to him, or aliens abducted him, or laundry gnomes stole his socks out of the drier -- which is more plausible: That he's telling the truth -- or that he's lying or deluded?

Please note that many scientific claims are deemed implausible, especially when they are first presented. And many have not been seriously considered at first, on that basis. But, if they have sufficient evidence to convince people -- not on faith, but through actual demonstration -- then they do convince people. One is a heliocentric solar system, and another involves dating the age of the earth.

Cutter · 03-22-2003, 05:05 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble Christian but there's nothing miraculous about biological alarm clocks. I used to do it all the time. I'd simply visualise what time I wanted to wake up and bingo! I would often wake up around 15-30 mins earlier than I wanted to. (Coincidentally, I first read about it in a James Bond novel, so people have known about this since at least the '50's).

As for your laughable claim about the resurrection being well documented - documented where? There is no such documentation outside of the NT (hardly an unbiased source). Amazing how all those Jewish and Roman historians managed to miss such a monumental occurence, isn't it?

Walross · 03-22-2003, 05:29 PM

Hi Christian

I don't know if you would necessarily call me a naturalist, and I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself, but I can illustrate for you one of the difficulties I have with accepting the existence of anything supernatural. Note that this is by no means my only reason for doubt, but the others have already been covered quite thoroughly in this thread. Note also, that doubting the supernatural is not the same as making the positive claim that it does not exist.

Say, for the sake of argument, that I decide to accept the existence of some mysterious realm known as the "supernatural" which can interact with the physical (ie natural) world and cause violations of it's laws. By what criteria do I evaluate claims about it? No one knows what (if any) laws govern it, and since there doesn't seem to be any repeatability or predictability going on it seems to me that all claims about the supernatural are equally non-falsifiable.

For example, let's say I were to tell you that I can hover 3 inches above the ground for a few minutes at a time. You would, of course (I hope) be skeptical of my ability to do this and would want to see it first hand. "Oh, sorry," I might say, "but I can't do it in the presence of christians - their christianity forms a field that doesn't allow me to hover. Nor can I videotape myself doing it - the magnetic disturbances cause problems too, nor can I do it in the presence of skeptics...." etc. Again, you would, of course be skeptical, but how do you know it doesn't work like this? You don't. No one does.

What I am trying to get at in my own roundabout way, is that, in the absence of any reliable method for evaluating claims about the supernatural, my default position on them must be doubt. Were it not, I would either be doomed to believe all claims about it, or I would be guilty of picking and choosing what I believe based on some arbitrary criteria (probably some subjective aesthetic). This is, of course assuming the absence of any direct experience of anything supernatural, but I have never had any such experience.

Pragmatically, of course, I accept claims about the natural world all the time without testing them (eg if a friend tells me they got a really good deal on a pair of pants, I'm not about to run to the store to check), but the natural world does have methods for evaluating claims about it, and so has a "plausibility" factor that the supernatural lacks.

I hope this made some sense to you. Regards,

Walross

BTW I believe OP means "opening post"

(edited to add) ah, I see marduck has already touched on some of these issues.

mike_decock · 03-22-2003, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
So claiming that "the natural world is all there is" does not rule out the supernatural?

The assertion is not expressly conditioned by anything. It is an unprovable premise. A positive ideological assertion that the only thing which exists is the natural.

Why make this particular unprovable ideological assertion? Why?
[/B]

I assume that the "supernatural world" does not exist for the same reasons I assume that the Easter Bunny does not exist.

I have never heard of any supernatural claim that wasn't easily explained in natural terms or revealed to be a hoax or illusion.

-Mike...

mike_decock · 03-22-2003, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
I have a Christian friend here in Korea who has not used an alarm clock for 3 years.[/B]

I had a roommate with the same "talent". He would "decide" when he needed to wake up and would wake up at that time. Nothing "supernatural" about it.

I've done it a few times myself. If there is an important meeting for me to go to in the morning, I decide when I need to wake up and I'll be up before the alarm clock.

With a supernaturalist worldview, it's easy to label anything out of the ordinary as a supernatural event.

With a naturalist worldview, something out of the ordinary is cause for investigation to determine the cause. Doing so is what allows new discoveries to be made. It's called progress.

If nobody had ever taken a naturalist worldview, we'd still be thinking that lightning came from Zeus or that thunder was the literal voice of God. I think that's reason enough to assume that the natural world is "all there is".

-Mike...

wade-w · 03-22-2003, 09:37 PM

Call Me Jay and Clete have come very close to my own thinking on this matter. It seems to me intuitive that anything that happens or exists is by definition natural. Whether or not we understand it is an entirely different matter.

As far as I can see, the term supernatural is an oxymoron.

Biff the unclean · 03-22-2003, 10:07 PM

Science only investigates what is repeatable and observable. What basis is there to assume that every thing which is real is repeatable and observable?
Science has been investigating claims of the supernatural since science started.
All of these claims have either been hoaxes or misinterpretations of natural events. There isn't any supernatural.

You are applying your ideological bias to the question of what science investigates. My question is what basis does your anti-supernatural bias rest on?
You are very, very quick to use the word BIAS. I assume you are desperate to throw science into a bad light. This particular BIAS is called HONESTY. When there is no bases for a claim you don't make it. There is not bases to any supernatural claims.

An unprovable ideological assertion. Your bias is as great as any charismatic Christian I�ve ever met.
Call me any names you like. There is still no supernatural. Just mistakes and con men. You seem to have fallen for the latter.

Please prove that your assertion here is true. If you cannot, please explain what has driven you to believe accept that particular ideological premise.
You've already admitted that it is true. Your specious attack on science is an obvious attempt to justify your groundless superstitions.

Unless you equate scientists with naturalists, that was not my question.
You don't even know what a Naturalist actually is. You are using it in the same manner that Christian Apologists do, as a "buzz word." That leads me to believe that this is the bunch of con artists that have snared you.

That�s beside my point. Why do naturalists make and accept such unprovable ideological assertions as you have given in your post here? That�s my question.
It's not unproven nor is it an ideology. It's simple facts arrived at by testing and re-testing. The results are either people who have fooled themselves or been fooled by other people.
I believe in God because it would be irrational not to given the evidence I have seen and the experiences I have had.
But you don't have any evidence that there is a God or you would present it.
Respectfully,
And you have no respect either. You are just another name caller, Mr Bias.

Supernatural does not = arbitrary
That's exactly what it equals. It means that no natural law is a law. 2+2 could, by supernatural means, equal anything. You could, by supernatural means, turn into a newt.
If there were a supernatural then the order you see in nature would be only an illusion that could be superceded at any moment.
You have a set of fictional stories that you like. Devils are stuck in a bunch of pigs, a guy comes back from the dead, water becomes wine. You feel comfortable with them and fail to see the ramifications behind magical thinking. If water can turn into wine then there is nothing keeping your morning tea from turning into poison. Nothing would be set; not the simplest thing could be knowable. Anything and everything could be supernaturally changed.
You haven't thought out what "supernatural" actually means. Supernaturalism is an incredibly stupid stance to take; it is contrary to every single truth that is known.
:banghead:

Christian · 03-22-2003, 10:23 PM

Marduck,

There is empirical evidence that the Bible is of supernatural origin, but since you mention the self-authenticating argument I�ll address that.

Any appeal to an ultimate authority must ultimately appeal to that authority for truth. This problem is not unique to arguing for the authority of the Bible. Everyone either implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of circular argument when defending their ultimate authority for belief.

For example: �My reason is my ultimate authority for belief because it seems reasonable to make it so.�

�Logical consistency is my ultimate authority for belief because it is logical to make it so.�

�The findings of human sensory experiences are the ultimate authority for discovering what is real and what is not, because our human senses have never discovered anything else: thus, human sensory experience tells me that my principle is true.�

�I know there can be no ultimate authority because I do not know of any such ultimate authority.�

Whatever your ultimate standard for truth is, the reason you accept that as your ultimate standard for discovering truth is ultimately somewhat circular. That�s just the nature of an ultimate authority.

Respectfully,

Christian

Volker.Doormann · 03-22-2003, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gary Welsh
We only seriously consider explanations we find plausible. If you lose a sock in your drier, you don't consider that maybe the laundry gnomes stole it. You may not ABSOLUTELY rule that possibility out, but it's not something you're going to seriously consider. The same applies to gods, ghosts, aliens, leprechauns, ad infinitum. Any one of these hypothetical entities might exist, according to anecdotal evidence (i.e. "stories people tell"). But scientists are mostly interested in stuff we can see, measure, experiment on, etc.

This last statement repeats the well known ignorance from natural scientist of immaterial, invisible, spiritual dimensions. But this ignorance makes some spiritual existence not untrue.

Most people respect a spiritual existence of an immaterial part of a human being. Scientists only can experience on physical/chemical/biological existing truth of a human being. If a human being would be not more than this, each human being inclusive scientists could be taken as food for dogs or could be murdered for any social comfort. Scientists are arguing something about existence/nonexistence, but there is no scientist, who is able to show by profession, what of a human being is that, what makes his existence, that is respected as an ethical existing truth. He himself claims (mostly), if there are hurts to his ethical existence, not able ever to show by seeing, measuring, experimenting on, etc. this - his own - existence.

If there is a discussion about spiritual order containing those ethical rules as part of nature also scientists must acknowledge an immaterial part of - at least - a human being, if they would be taken seriously in reasonable arguing on this theme.

Volker

Christian · 03-22-2003, 10:34 PM

Volker,

No assertions? Self awareness is everything? Contradiction implies non-existence?

I�m truly unfamiliar with your perspective. I find your approach very interesting, though. Thanks for your thoughts.

Respectfully,

Christian

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-22-2003, 04:22 PM	#81
Gary Welsh Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Saxonburg, PA, USA Posts: 134	We rule out the supernatural because it's implausible. Some scientists have said that the supernatural is outside the bounds of what science can study or examine. That's just a polite way of saying it's implausible. We only seriously consider explanations we find plausible. If you lose a sock in your drier, you don't consider that maybe the laundry gnomes stole it. You may not ABSOLUTELY rule that possibility out, but it's not something you're going to seriously consider. The same applies to gods, ghosts, aliens, leprechauns, ad infinitum. Any one of these hypothetical entities might exist, according to anecdotal evidence (i.e. "stories people tell"). But scientists are mostly interested in stuff we can see, measure, experiment on, etc. A good analogy is the Cartesian Doubt. You might be deluded by a malevolent genie of great powers: the objective world as you think it is, may not really exist -- it may all be an illusion made by this malevolent genie to trick you... There's no way you can disprove this possibility. The modern version of this was given in the movie, "The Matrix." The malevolent genie was replaced with a computer, and the illusion was a virtual reality world that all human minds were placed in. As long as the illusion is perfect, and there is no one from "outside of it" to reveal it to you, there is no way you can detect it. That could be the situation you are in, right now. This was Descartes' point. You can't be absolutely sure something like this isn't the case. You can't rule it out, with absolute certainty. Yet, you can reasonably rule it out, on the basis of it being implausible. In the case of supernatural (or psuedoscientific) claims, the much more plausible explanations are psychological rather than physical. If someone claims to you that a god spoke to him, or aliens abducted him, or laundry gnomes stole his socks out of the drier -- which is more plausible: That he's telling the truth -- or that he's lying or deluded? Please note that many scientific claims are deemed implausible, especially when they are first presented. And many have not been seriously considered at first, on that basis. But, if they have sufficient evidence to convince people -- not on faith, but through actual demonstration -- then they do convince people. One is a heliocentric solar system, and another involves dating the age of the earth.

03-22-2003, 05:05 PM	#82
Cutter Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,805	Sorry to burst your bubble Christian but there's nothing miraculous about biological alarm clocks. I used to do it all the time. I'd simply visualise what time I wanted to wake up and bingo! I would often wake up around 15-30 mins earlier than I wanted to. (Coincidentally, I first read about it in a James Bond novel, so people have known about this since at least the '50's). As for your laughable claim about the resurrection being well documented - documented where? There is no such documentation outside of the NT (hardly an unbiased source). Amazing how all those Jewish and Roman historians managed to miss such a monumental occurence, isn't it?

03-22-2003, 05:29 PM	#83
Walross Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada Posts: 1,569	Hi Christian I don't know if you would necessarily call me a naturalist, and I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself, but I can illustrate for you one of the difficulties I have with accepting the existence of anything supernatural. Note that this is by no means my only reason for doubt, but the others have already been covered quite thoroughly in this thread. Note also, that doubting the supernatural is not the same as making the positive claim that it does not exist. Say, for the sake of argument, that I decide to accept the existence of some mysterious realm known as the "supernatural" which can interact with the physical (ie natural) world and cause violations of it's laws. By what criteria do I evaluate claims about it? No one knows what (if any) laws govern it, and since there doesn't seem to be any repeatability or predictability going on it seems to me that all claims about the supernatural are equally non-falsifiable. For example, let's say I were to tell you that I can hover 3 inches above the ground for a few minutes at a time. You would, of course (I hope) be skeptical of my ability to do this and would want to see it first hand. "Oh, sorry," I might say, "but I can't do it in the presence of christians - their christianity forms a field that doesn't allow me to hover. Nor can I videotape myself doing it - the magnetic disturbances cause problems too, nor can I do it in the presence of skeptics...." etc. Again, you would, of course be skeptical, but how do you know it doesn't work like this? You don't. No one does. What I am trying to get at in my own roundabout way, is that, in the absence of any reliable method for evaluating claims about the supernatural, my default position on them must be doubt. Were it not, I would either be doomed to believe all claims about it, or I would be guilty of picking and choosing what I believe based on some arbitrary criteria (probably some subjective aesthetic). This is, of course assuming the absence of any direct experience of anything supernatural, but I have never had any such experience. Pragmatically, of course, I accept claims about the natural world all the time without testing them (eg if a friend tells me they got a really good deal on a pair of pants, I'm not about to run to the store to check), but the natural world does have methods for evaluating claims about it, and so has a "plausibility" factor that the supernatural lacks. I hope this made some sense to you. Regards, Walross BTW I believe OP means "opening post" (edited to add) ah, I see marduck has already touched on some of these issues.

03-22-2003, 09:37 PM	#86
wade-w Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Silver City, New Mexico Posts: 1,872	Call Me Jay and Clete have come very close to my own thinking on this matter. It seems to me intuitive that anything that happens or exists is by definition natural. Whether or not we understand it is an entirely different matter. As far as I can see, the term supernatural is an oxymoron.

03-22-2003, 10:07 PM	#87
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Science only investigates what is repeatable and observable. What basis is there to assume that every thing which is real is repeatable and observable? Science has been investigating claims of the supernatural since science started. All of these claims have either been hoaxes or misinterpretations of natural events. There isn't any supernatural. You are applying your ideological bias to the question of what science investigates. My question is what basis does your anti-supernatural bias rest on? You are very, very quick to use the word BIAS. I assume you are desperate to throw science into a bad light. This particular BIAS is called HONESTY. When there is no bases for a claim you don't make it. There is not bases to any supernatural claims. An unprovable ideological assertion. Your bias is as great as any charismatic Christian I�ve ever met. Call me any names you like. There is still no supernatural. Just mistakes and con men. You seem to have fallen for the latter. Please prove that your assertion here is true. If you cannot, please explain what has driven you to believe accept that particular ideological premise. You've already admitted that it is true. Your specious attack on science is an obvious attempt to justify your groundless superstitions. Unless you equate scientists with naturalists, that was not my question. You don't even know what a Naturalist actually is. You are using it in the same manner that Christian Apologists do, as a "buzz word." That leads me to believe that this is the bunch of con artists that have snared you. That�s beside my point. Why do naturalists make and accept such unprovable ideological assertions as you have given in your post here? That�s my question. It's not unproven nor is it an ideology. It's simple facts arrived at by testing and re-testing. The results are either people who have fooled themselves or been fooled by other people. I believe in God because it would be irrational not to given the evidence I have seen and the experiences I have had. But you don't have any evidence that there is a God or you would present it. Respectfully, And you have no respect either. You are just another name caller, Mr Bias. Supernatural does not = arbitrary That's exactly what it equals. It means that no natural law is a law. 2+2 could, by supernatural means, equal anything. You could, by supernatural means, turn into a newt. If there were a supernatural then the order you see in nature would be only an illusion that could be superceded at any moment. You have a set of fictional stories that you like. Devils are stuck in a bunch of pigs, a guy comes back from the dead, water becomes wine. You feel comfortable with them and fail to see the ramifications behind magical thinking. If water can turn into wine then there is nothing keeping your morning tea from turning into poison. Nothing would be set; not the simplest thing could be knowable. Anything and everything could be supernaturally changed. You haven't thought out what "supernatural" actually means. Supernaturalism is an incredibly stupid stance to take; it is contrary to every single truth that is known. :banghead:

03-22-2003, 10:23 PM	#88
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Marduck, There is empirical evidence that the Bible is of supernatural origin, but since you mention the self-authenticating argument I�ll address that. Any appeal to an ultimate authority must ultimately appeal to that authority for truth. This problem is not unique to arguing for the authority of the Bible. Everyone either implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of circular argument when defending their ultimate authority for belief. For example: �My reason is my ultimate authority for belief because it seems reasonable to make it so.� �Logical consistency is my ultimate authority for belief because it is logical to make it so.� �The findings of human sensory experiences are the ultimate authority for discovering what is real and what is not, because our human senses have never discovered anything else: thus, human sensory experience tells me that my principle is true.� �I know there can be no ultimate authority because I do not know of any such ultimate authority.� Whatever your ultimate standard for truth is, the reason you accept that as your ultimate standard for discovering truth is ultimately somewhat circular. That�s just the nature of an ultimate authority. Respectfully, Christian

03-22-2003, 10:34 PM	#90
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Volker, No assertions? Self awareness is everything? Contradiction implies non-existence? I�m truly unfamiliar with your perspective. I find your approach very interesting, though. Thanks for your thoughts. Respectfully, Christian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.