seebs

Perhaps the problem here isn't Radorth, but your straw man of him. I have never met anyone who "automatically accepts supernatural over natural explanations". Ever. Even the people who think nightmares are demonic attacks are willing to accept natural explanations for a lot of things

One might as well ask:

Guys, why do you waste your time on Starboy? He is a naturalist. When it comes to his religion, he automatically accepts natural over supernatural explanations. What is the point of expecting him to do otherwise?

And be just as correct.

You both bring your expectations about the structure of the world to any attempt at evaluation. I haven't watched Radorth for long, but you, Starboy, are entirely too confident that your expectations are Revealed Truth, and that anything which contradicts them is Heresy.

You are, of course, entitled to that opinion, but it's not much fun for people who don't share it - or even, in many cases, for people who agree with you, but are less dogmatic.

Starboy

seebs, my point exacty. I do accept natural over supernatural explanations. In this day and age that is how it is done. The only exception is religion and it appears to be by social convention to placate those that cling to the outmoded thought processes of the first century.
Now you put words into my mouth. I think the word "truth" as you use it is as usless a concept as the supernatural. You seem to also suffer from the same affliction of thought as Radorth.

Starboy

seebs

You keep saying this as though it means something. The primary thought process most religious people I know is basic formal logic; this underlies everything everyone I know does. They may have weird premises, but the basic formal system hasn't changed since *long* before the first century.

Other objections:
1. This is obviously *not* "how it is done" in the general case - there's a few billion religious folks, so obviously, not everyone has a 100% dogma that all supernatural explanations are wrong.
2. Even if everyone agreed, what would that prove? "Everyone" can be wrong.
3. What exactly do you mean by "thought processes of the first century"?
4. Since when is "old" a guarantee of "not good"?

My thought processes, whatever they may be, allow me to program computers, write music, write articles, write fiction, praise God, tell stories, invent jokes, balance a checkbook, and be fascinated by modern physics.

Can you be more specific and show me a place in which my thought processes are "outmoded", or even just one in which the result they produce can be proven wrong?

I don't think you understand how religious people, in general, think. I don't know where you get your silly model, but I have never once seen someone prefer supernatural explanations to natural ones "automatically", or even most of the time. Certainly, you seem to have this idea that people pick one, and only one, mode of thinking, and that yours is the Best Mode Of Thinking. In fact, the best way to do things is to use the right tool for the right job. Formal proofs for mathematics, empiricism for science, and philosophy for moral questions, give or take. Given this, your objection boils down to "some people use philosophies I don't agree with", and that's a very, very, silly objection to have.

If it's such a useless concept, why do you insist that your model is the One True Model, and others are Bad? What you do is absolutely indistinguishable to an outside observer from the behavior of someone who has a religious dogma. You attack opposing belief systems on sight; you even do so in vague and confusing words. You're the one who coined the "truth" (in quotes) usage to refer to what's bad about religion, but every time you've tried to describe what it's like, you've described your own behavior perfectly.

As to my "affliction of thought", well, if Radorth and I have the same basic model, then you've said something rather thoroughly false about him, in your claim that he automatically prefers supernatural explanations to natural ones. It's certainly not true of me.

If you want to attack my willingness to accept supernatural explanations *in some cases*, sure, go ahead - but try to avoid the straw man, he's fragile.

Starboy

Seebs,

There are phenomena and then there are the explanations of those phenomena. There was a time, such as the 1st century when it was common to explain phenomena using such things as ghosts, spirits, sin, gods, demons, devils, souls and so forth. In that day and age this was expected and accepted. The historical documents from the time reflect this point of view. Even to this day it is possible to employ supernatural explanations for phenomena such as is done in the practice of voodoo and faith healing. We dismiss such supernatural explanations because we have learned that phenomena can be explained by natural causes. We may not have a natural explanation for all phenomena, but in such cases it is not the practice to accept a supernatural explanation in its place. To explain things using natural explanations has become so prevalent that if someone explained in all seriousness the operation of a microprocessor by proclaiming that angels inside performed the computations we would consider them to be crazy. This is what I mean when I say that in this day and age it is the practice to accept natural over supernatural explanations, that the metaphors of ghosts, spirits and so forth are the methods of explaining things from a bygone superstitious era.

We have come from a time, the first century, when just about everything was explained supernaturaly to a time when only supernatural religion is explained that way. How could that happen if there really was a super nature?

Starboy

seebs

Some of these are explanations; some of them are arguably themselves phenomena.

"The" practice. I see; on your planet, everyone is unified in agreement with the Revealed Truth you have been vouchsafed by Noone In Particular. Great.

Of course, because we have a perfectly good explanation already.

On the other hand, lots of people figure that they have an existance separate from the body which they also experience, because "I experience this" is often a sign that the thing experienced is external to one. We don't have any particular arguments for or against it, nor can we ever.

We have gone from a time when people explained chemistry in terms of air, earth, fire, and water, to a time when we use the periodic table. How could this have happened if air, earth, fire, and water existed?

People often overgeneralize, explain poorly, or whatever. The pet theory of an age is often advanced even in cases where it applies poorly. The lesson to learn is not "every theory but my pet theory is a bad theory"; it is "even your pet theory is not always the right one".

I don't throw out the theory of gravity because it doesn't explain chemical reactions; I recognize that it has limits.

People have been predicting the death of "superstition" for centuries. It hasn't happened; perhaps there's a lesson in that, too.

Starboy

seebs, spoken like a "true" supernaturalist. The next time your mechanic tells you your car is possesed and cannot be fixed, or your doctor tells you that the reason why you are dying is because the devil has cursed you, let me know how it works out for you.

Starboy

seebs

You should give the Burning Man people their giant straw man back, I think they're looking for it.

Starboy

seebs, the funny thing about this discussion is that you appear to get upset when referred to as a super naturalist. It doesn't bother me one bit to be referred to as a naturalist. Could that be because there is a very real social bias against supernatural explanations? One that even you hold? Mind you that doesn't make a bias toward the natural correct, but it does indicate that supernaturalism is not longer in style. Do you think the flat earth idea will ever come back? You know, it could be that sometimes things go out of style because they really are stupid.

Starboy

seebs

Yes; the former description is inaccurate. A "supernaturalist" should be someone who accepts *ONLY* supernatural explanations.

Against using them for things like cars, yes. And you've accused me of thinking that, but it's not true, and I've told you that, and you keep coming up with other straw man examples which are not especially similar.

Could be - but not always *is*. Cleanliness went out of fashion for a long time in Western medicine, but it came back, because it was a *good idea*.

Stephen T-B

A physical hell where souls burn for eternity made perfectly good sense to the Medieval mind; the Modern mind which clings to the notion must, however, overcome the absurdities which are now apparent in it, and can only do so by performing mental contortions of the most tortuous sort.
A simple idea thus becomes so distorted and convoluted that only a very considerable intelligence is able to make any sense of it.
Great Brains cogitate and make pronouncements as though there were something worth cogitating and making pronouncements about.
I am reminded of the Theosophists’ (and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s) attempts to rationalise their belief in Nature Spirits and support for the faked Cottingley Fairies photos.