Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daggah · 03-21-2002, 03:32 AM

Presupposing, for a moment, that a supernatural world does exist, the supernatural is reasonably defined as "above the natural world," and is, by definition, untestable and unmeasureable using natural means. The supernatural, therefore, has a barrier preventing it from acting upon the natural - if it could act upon the natural, the results could therefore be measured and tested, providing us with a way of indirectly testing and measuring the supernatural itself.

Our feelings, emotions, and experiences are all the result of natural (though certainly complex) chemical processes in the brain.

So it stands to follow that, because our experiences are natural, then the supernatural can't act upon them. Therefore, religious experiences ("feeling the presence of god") cannot be supernatural experiences.

Thoughts?

sighhswolf · 03-21-2002, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:
Presupposing, for a moment, that a supernatural world does exist, the supernatural is reasonably defined as "above the natural world," and is, by definition, untestable and unmeasureable using natural means. The supernatural, therefore, has a barrier preventing it from acting upon the natural - if it could act upon the natural, the results could therefore be measured and tested, providing us with a way of indirectly testing and measuring the supernatural itself.

Our feelings, emotions, and experiences are all the result of natural (though certainly complex) chemical processes in the brain.

So it stands to follow that, because our experiences are natural, then the supernatural can't act upon them. Therefore, religious experiences ("feeling the presence of god") cannot be supernatural experiences.

Thoughts?

I agree that "religious experiences" are not supernatural.
I dont think there is anything that would lend itself to what we perceive to be "supernatural".

For something/someone to exist it must have definable characteristics, and positive attributes.
The "supernatural" by definition cannot exist
within the boundries of the natural universe.
It has no known and definable attributes with
which we could quantify, qualify, or document using scientific methodology.
If we were able to define the "event" "situation"
then it would move from the supernatural to the natural universe, it would no longer be "supernatural".

This is one of the main problems with the Christian god. And with christian theology itself.
Christians want their god to have definable attributes, something they can relate to and understand, yet they they want this god to remain
above reality.
But the simple fact is that once you give something definable attributes it becomes part of the natural universe.
By simply stating "something exists", you have assigned operating parameters to that "something".

Nothing exists without definable characteristics.
Nothing can act outside of it's nature or character, so to assign the christian god attributes is to assign natural limitations to it's nature and of course christians want their god to be unlimited in power and scope.
Contradictions by the boatfull.
Wolf

David Bowden · 03-21-2002, 11:00 AM

I'm an agnostic technically, and an atheist in every practical sense, but I think I see where a God-of-the-gaps style answer might prevail, at least rhetorically. Here are my thoughts:

It depends on how well the supernatural interference is masked by the supernatural agent, whether or not we could test for it.

If supernatural interference happens only at the will of an omniscient being, then God could work so slyly and so unpredictably that you wouldn't be able to test for it (he knows what you're thinking and has already worked around it). Unless you could observe almost everything that an omnipotent and playful universe-sustainer can tinker with, you can't rule out God's ability to outsmart you. And even if you did have those observational powers, you can't rule out God's ability to cloud your vision or change the reality you perceive, in order to get his will done.

This would be an impish and perhaps morally repellent deity, but 1)our ways aren't God's ways(

) and 2)it's still possible to hypothesize such a supernatural entity interfering with our natural world, even if we get along in life just fine by practicing methodological naturalism. The divine imp could still be playing with us, for reasons all His own.

Take for instance that asteriod on a near-collision course with earth, discovered just a few days ago. I don't know how we can confirm its prior existence; so if someone claims that God planted an old-looking rock in orbit last month, just to remind us of our human frailty, could we completely debunk that claim with proof that it's been floating around the solar system for eons?

In terms of human physiology and religious experience, such a God could tinker with people at will, staying just a step or two ahead of brain science, and He could even deliberately frustrate naturalists trying to measure anything contravening natural processes by being selective and even deceptive in His activities.

He could even set up religious peoples' brains to give them experiences that register as 'naturally occuring,' when in fact He's just provided the initial catalyst or 'formatted our system' for such experiences to occur, sort of like a mystical auto-pilot. When believers experience something in the real world, the religious experience kicks in, Pavlov-style. Or perhaps he can whisper into some very sensitive, as-yet-undisclosed part of the brain, and activate the spiritual response, even communing with his chosen ones.

So a religious experience ("feeling the presence of god") could be both a natural and a supernatural experience.

Obviously we skeptics believe that as our understanding of the mind matures, there will be fewer holes left for God to fill, and like ID, such God of the gap hypotheses will prove unsupportable in the end. But we have to admit that at present, we're assuming based on prior experience that nothing in brain science will ultimately defy naturalistic explanation. Because this loophole exists, I think that apologists for the supernatural will always rally around it, and be pains the in the butt for the forseeable future.

I always leave room for the argument from Pac-man : we may be very knowledgeable about the game environment we live in, but we've no way of knowing how often the system gets upgraded or rebooted, or whether the limits on our knowing/experiencing have anything at all to do with what might actually be.

I don't personally have any beliefs concerning all that - I think healthy skepticism is the best way to deal with it, lest we fall for anything and everything. So I'm not impressed with any of the claims to transcendance made by people so far, and I think that even the most vague religious belief is rightfully called "unwarranted."

But I cannot technically rule out the possibility that reality includes more than what we consider to be "natural."

-Wanderer

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]

MadMordigan · 03-21-2002, 11:13 AM

But I cannot technically rule out the possibility that reality includes more than what we consider to be "natural."

Fair enough. But this is no more true than the fact that I cannot technically rule out the possibility that you are a fig-newton of my imagination. I suppose that the most honest of us would practice genuine metaphysical nihilism. I tried that myself one time, but I got hungry and went out for a pizza.

Godless Dave · 03-21-2002, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:
Our feelings, emotions, and experiences are all the result of natural (though certainly complex) chemical processes in the brain.

You won't convince a theists with this argument, because many of them believe that our feelings and emotions, consciousness itself, are not the result of natural processes in the brain. Love, intuition, and respect for the dead have all been presented to me as not having a natural explanation. Basically if we don't have a natural explanation yet, theists assume it doesn't exist, and there must be a supernatural explanation.

David Bowden · 03-21-2002, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadMordigan:
(posted by Wanderer: )But I cannot technically rule out the possibility that reality includes more than what we consider to be "natural."

Fair enough. But this is no more true than the fact that I cannot technically rule out the possibility that you are a fig-newton of my imagination. I suppose that the most honest of us would practice genuine metaphysical nihilism. I tried that myself one time, but I got hungry and went out for a pizza.

I completely agree with you, MadMordigan. Those who assert anything specific about the supernatural, or even simply assert that the supernatural is (or isn't), are taking an unwarranted step, IMO. But nihilism or solipsism, immoderately consumed, are just as life-wasting as superstition. Which is why, for any and all practical purposes, I'm an atheist and describe myself as such in ordinary conversation.

And since there's no way to find out whether I'm right or wrong in such speculation as I've just indulged in... pass the pizza!

-Wanderer

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]

jdawg2 · 03-21-2002, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave:


You won't convince a theists with this argument, because many of them believe that our feelings and emotions, consciousness itself, are not the result of natural processes in the brain. Love, intuition, and respect for the dead have all been presented to me as not having a natural explanation. Basically if we don't have a natural explanation yet, theists assume it doesn't exist, and there must be a supernatural explanation.

give em some drugs and see how long that "love, intuition, and respect for the dead" lasts

sighhswolf · 03-21-2002, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wide-eyed wanderer:
I'm an agnostic technically, and an atheist in every practical sense, but I think I see where a God-of-the-gaps style answer might prevail, at least rhetorically. Here are my thoughts:

It depends on how well the supernatural interference is masked by the supernatural agent, whether or not we could test for it.

If supernatural interference happens only at the will of an omniscient being, then God could work so slyly and so unpredictably that you wouldn't be able to test for it (he knows what you're thinking and has already worked around it). Unless you could observe almost everything that an omnipotent and playful universe-sustainer can tinker with, you can't rule out God's ability to outsmart you. And even if you did have those observational powers, you can't rule out God's ability to cloud your vision or change the reality you perceive, in order to get his will done.

This would be an impish and perhaps morally repellent deity, but 1)our ways aren't God's ways(

) and 2)it's still possible to hypothesize such a supernatural entity interfering with our natural world, even if we get along in life just fine by practicing methodological naturalism. The divine imp could still be playing with us, for reasons all His own.

Take for instance that asteriod on a near-collision course with earth, discovered just a few days ago. I don't know how we can confirm its prior existence; so if someone claims that God planted an old-looking rock in orbit last month, just to remind us of our human frailty, could we completely debunk that claim with proof that it's been floating around the solar system for eons?

In terms of human physiology and religious experience, such a God could tinker with people at will, staying just a step or two ahead of brain science, and He could even deliberately frustrate naturalists trying to measure anything contravening natural processes by being selective and even deceptive in His activities.

He could even set up religious peoples' brains to give them experiences that register as 'naturally occuring,' when in fact He's just provided the initial catalyst or 'formatted our system' for such experiences to occur, sort of like a mystical auto-pilot. When believers experience something in the real world, the religious experience kicks in, Pavlov-style. Or perhaps he can whisper into some very sensitive, as-yet-undisclosed part of the brain, and activate the spiritual response, even communing with his chosen ones.

So a religious experience ("feeling the presence of god") could be both a natural and a supernatural experience.

Obviously we skeptics believe that as our understanding of the mind matures, there will be fewer holes left for God to fill, and like ID, such God of the gap hypotheses will prove unsupportable in the end. But we have to admit that at present, we're assuming based on prior experience that nothing in brain science will ultimately defy naturalistic explanation. Because this loophole exists, I think that apologists for the supernatural will always rally around it, and be pains the in the butt for the forseeable future.

I always leave room for the argument from Pac-man : we may be very knowledgeable about the game environment we live in, but we've no way of knowing how often the system gets upgraded or rebooted, or whether the limits on our knowing/experiencing have anything at all to do with what might actually be.

I don't personally have any beliefs concerning all that - I think healthy skepticism is the best way to deal with it, lest we fall for anything and everything. So I'm not impressed with any of the claims to transcendance made by people so far, and I think that even the most vague religious belief is rightfully called "unwarranted."

But I cannot technically rule out the possibility that reality includes more than what we consider to be "natural."

-Wanderer

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]

Which is why I ask how can any christian believe
that anything that supposedly issues from their god is or ever can be "Truth" as we define it.
As you alluded to above, how can you play the game without rules?
Or how can you play when the rules are constantly changing.
In other words how can you determine reality if the being you worship has the ability to alter reality to fit his/her/it's needs at that particular moment?
And how could you assign unlimited attributes to
a being that is supposedly beyond the understanding of his followers?
I am reminded of the Catholic Encyclopedia and it's list of attributes that supposedly define their god, a list of some 21 or so "POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES".............
followed by the attribute of "inconceivability".

Which is what I personally think of the whole doctrine...inconceivable..
Wolf

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

03-21-2002, 03:32 AM	#1
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	The supernatural's interaction with the natural - religious experiences Presupposing, for a moment, that a supernatural world does exist, the supernatural is reasonably defined as "above the natural world," and is, by definition, untestable and unmeasureable using natural means. The supernatural, therefore, has a barrier preventing it from acting upon the natural - if it could act upon the natural, the results could therefore be measured and tested, providing us with a way of indirectly testing and measuring the supernatural itself. Our feelings, emotions, and experiences are all the result of natural (though certainly complex) chemical processes in the brain. So it stands to follow that, because our experiences are natural, then the supernatural can't act upon them. Therefore, religious experiences ("feeling the presence of god") cannot be supernatural experiences. Thoughts?

03-21-2002, 11:00 AM	#3
David Bowden Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Everywhere I go. Yes, even there. Posts: 607	I'm an agnostic technically, and an atheist in every practical sense, but I think I see where a God-of-the-gaps style answer might prevail, at least rhetorically. Here are my thoughts: It depends on how well the supernatural interference is masked by the supernatural agent, whether or not we could test for it. If supernatural interference happens only at the will of an omniscient being, then God could work so slyly and so unpredictably that you wouldn't be able to test for it (he knows what you're thinking and has already worked around it). Unless you could observe almost everything that an omnipotent and playful universe-sustainer can tinker with, you can't rule out God's ability to outsmart you. And even if you did have those observational powers, you can't rule out God's ability to cloud your vision or change the reality you perceive, in order to get his will done. This would be an impish and perhaps morally repellent deity, but 1)our ways aren't God's ways( ) and 2)it's still possible to hypothesize such a supernatural entity interfering with our natural world, even if we get along in life just fine by practicing methodological naturalism. The divine imp could still be playing with us, for reasons all His own. Take for instance that asteriod on a near-collision course with earth, discovered just a few days ago. I don't know how we can confirm its prior existence; so if someone claims that God planted an old-looking rock in orbit last month, just to remind us of our human frailty, could we completely debunk that claim with proof that it's been floating around the solar system for eons? In terms of human physiology and religious experience, such a God could tinker with people at will, staying just a step or two ahead of brain science, and He could even deliberately frustrate naturalists trying to measure anything contravening natural processes by being selective and even deceptive in His activities. He could even set up religious peoples' brains to give them experiences that register as 'naturally occuring,' when in fact He's just provided the initial catalyst or 'formatted our system' for such experiences to occur, sort of like a mystical auto-pilot. When believers experience something in the real world, the religious experience kicks in, Pavlov-style. Or perhaps he can whisper into some very sensitive, as-yet-undisclosed part of the brain, and activate the spiritual response, even communing with his chosen ones. So a religious experience ("feeling the presence of god") could be both a natural and a supernatural experience. Obviously we skeptics believe that as our understanding of the mind matures, there will be fewer holes left for God to fill, and like ID, such God of the gap hypotheses will prove unsupportable in the end. But we have to admit that at present, we're assuming based on prior experience that nothing in brain science will ultimately defy naturalistic explanation. Because this loophole exists, I think that apologists for the supernatural will always rally around it, and be pains the in the butt for the forseeable future. I always leave room for the argument from Pac-man : we may be very knowledgeable about the game environment we live in, but we've no way of knowing how often the system gets upgraded or rebooted, or whether the limits on our knowing/experiencing have anything at all to do with what might actually be. I don't personally have any beliefs concerning all that - I think healthy skepticism is the best way to deal with it, lest we fall for anything and everything. So I'm not impressed with any of the claims to transcendance made by people so far, and I think that even the most vague religious belief is rightfully called "unwarranted." But I cannot technically rule out the possibility that reality includes more than what we consider to be "natural." -Wanderer [ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

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

03-21-2002, 11:13 AM	#4
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	But I cannot technically rule out the possibility that reality includes more than what we consider to be "natural." Fair enough. But this is no more true than the fact that I cannot technically rule out the possibility that you are a fig-newton of my imagination. I suppose that the most honest of us would practice genuine metaphysical nihilism. I tried that myself one time, but I got hungry and went out for a pizza.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.