|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The supernatural hypothesis has failed.
Of the innumerable supernatural explanations proposed throughout human history not a single one has ever been vindicated. All those questions that have been able to be adequately explored have resulted in the overturning of the mystical, magical and supernatural explanation by means of examining and understanding the entirely natural. The entire history of science is one of encountering perplexing and baffling phenomena that initially seem to demand magical and supernatural answers but which ultimately turn out to be entirely natural. There have been no exceptions to this. The best the committed supernaturalist can now to do is cling to the ever diminishing remaining gaps in our knowledge and understanding.
So given this epic failure of the supernatural hypothesis to date is it time to abandon this hypothesis? Is it ever now evidentially and rationally justifiable to cite the supernatural explanation as the answer or cause of ANY known phenomenon? Phenomenon to which the supernatural answer is still commonly advocated such as (but not limited to):
Whilst science can no more disprove the supernatural answer than it can prove the natural, have we now reached the point where the supernatural hypothesis can be legitimately dismissed as futile and desperately unlikely to bear any fruit as a means of explaining anything? Has the supernatural hypothesis failed? Or does continued advocacy of the supernatural as an explanation remain justified? If so on what basis? Edited by Straggler, : Add title
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread copied here from the Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
'The supernatural did it' is a good place holder for people or cultures who cannot get their heads around the natuaralist explanation at any given moment in time.
People will become attached to their supernatural conclusions because they are open to 'positive wish fullfullment' that makes us feel all warm and cosey in side but I think, on balance the dominance of 'the supernatural did it' is over for the forseeable future in the developed world [snark]with the possible exception of America[/snark].
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
So what is the supernatural hypothesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
PD writes: So what is the supernatural hypothesis? Well historically it could be that something supernatural is responsible for fertility, or the weather, or the harvest or any other ill understood phenomenon of the time. These days it tends to be the notion that the supernatural is responsible for some more grand unknown, or belief based, phenomenon. For example that somethingsupernatural is required to explain things such as (but not restricted to):
Is the supernatural explanation (e.g. that god created the universe, OR that religious experiences are best explained by the actual existence, and interaction with, supernatural entities rather than psychological factors etc. etc.) a viable explanation for any of the above? Is somethingsupernaturaldidit a viable answer or explanation to anything? If so what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Of course not, it's a complete non answer, being used by people who are not comfortable with saying "I don't know". So they use this to give an illusion of an answer. But since it doesn't explain anything at all, it's of course equivalent to saying "I don't know".
Is somethingsupernaturaldidit a viable answer or explanation to anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well I agree. But there are many here at EvC who claim that their belief in the supernatural is somehow evidenced.
They must consider some aspect of nature to be best explained by the actual existence of the supernatural. Whether the phenomenon in question is the existence of the universe itself, the fact that humans across cultures display religious beliefs or some sort of internal experience - They are implicitly citing the supernatural explanation for said phenomenon as a valid one. But given the 100% failure rate of the supernatural explanation to anything at all why does anyone persist with this as an explanation to anything at all? Personal appeal alone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4970 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined:
|
Hi Straggler
But there are many here at EvC who claim that their belief in the supernatural is somehow evidenced. If we ever do get evidence for something that is currently classifed as "supernatural" (E.G. if an entity revealed itself to us, and demonstrated in a most convincing manner how it created the universe), would that not just be a new and possibly better natural explanation of things, in exactly the same way as Einstein's theories superseded Newton's? I.E. Is "supernatural" just a word meaning "something we don't understand at this time" and if we ever do understand it, then it becomes re-classified as "natural"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
Yes, that's precisely what happens.
Is "supernatural" just a word meaning "something we don't understand at this time" and if we ever do understand it, then it becomes re-classified as "natural"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1052 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Before we can decide if all supernatural explanations have failed, we have to have some clear definition of what you mean as supernatural. Your current definition seems to be that an explanation counts as supernatural if it includes a supernatural entity, which is a bit circular.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
JuC writes: If we ever do get evidence for something that is currently classifed as "supernatural" (E.G. if an entity revealed itself to us, and demonstrated in a most convincing manner how it created the universe), would that not just be a new and possibly better natural explanation of things, in exactly the same way as Einstein's theories superseded Newton's? I guess it depends what it is that reveals itself to us. Does simply creating the universe make something supernatural? Are colliding branes (for example) supernatural? I don’t think so. If we humans ever reach the dizzy technological heights of being able to create universes ourselves would that make us supernatural? Again — I think not. So what is an example of a supernatural explanation for the origins of our universe? Well the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent eternal, uncreated incomprehensible immaterial being that is oft cited as God would be one obvious example. The difference between the two is comparable to the difference between technology and magic. Technology utilises the laws of nature to achieve a result. Magic overturns the laws of nature to achieve a result. Only the latter is supernatural.
JuC writes: I.E. Is "supernatural" just a word meaning "something we don't understand at this time" and if we ever do understand it, then it becomes re-classified as "natural"? It certainly gets applied as an explanation to things that we do not understand at this time. But I don’t think that when supernaturalists cite such explanations they are suggesting that we simply currently lack the know-how or technology to investigate those explanations. It isn’t just a question of having your God-ometer set to the correct supernatural frequency (for example). They seem to be suggesting that such explanations are imperceptible, unknowable and inscrutable to us mere material beings for some reason. I certainly agree that the trend of finding natural explanations for as yet unexplained phenomenon will continue. And I also agree that our concept of what constitutes natural will continue to expand as our knowledge progresses. There may even be natural phenomenon that will remain forever beyond our ability to understand. However I don’t think we are going to discover and simply relabel the sort of inherently imperceptible immaterial entities which supernaturalists advocate. Divine or ethereal entities which are not subject to laws of nature and/or which are capable of suspending or overcoming those laws in order to achieve the miraculous. If we discover evidence of something like that — Then the supernaturlaists will really have something to shout about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Caf writes: Before we can decide if all supernatural explanations have failed, we have to have some clear definition of what you mean as supernatural. That which is inherently immune from material investigation of any sort?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4970 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
The difference between the two is comparable to the difference between technology and magic. Technology utilises the laws of nature to achieve a result. Magic overturns the laws of nature to achieve a result. Only the latter is supernatural. Ah, but does magic overturn the laws of nature? Maybe what we call "magic" or "supernatural" simply uses laws of nature we have not yet discovered. If we don't know what magic or supernatural actually are, then how can we say that they do not use laws of nature? If something "supernatural" created the "natural" universe that we know, then the supernatural must have some connection to the natural. So one is just some kind of extension of the other. They can't be separate if they have some connection - quite literally!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
If humans were not satisfied with "Osiris was chasing his cock down the Nile this season and forgot to work his magic" as an answer to "why did my crops fail?" then we'd never have planted next years crops.
It's good enough that a small percent of people are not satisfied, but the rest of the population can just take whatever's offered and get on with the 'important' stuff. So as a pragmatic hypothesis, the supernatural one has succeeded wonderfully. We need to have some intellectual curiosity, but not enough to undermine our survival and reproduction prospects. That's what we've evolved with, and as long as I am me, I'll continue to be lured by spooky explanations that 'feel' good (ie., as long as my brain exists and is generating a functioning mind). But obviously, any hypothesis which maintains unverifiablility and unfalsifiability at its core is a bunch of wank as far as actually providing any explanation in which we can have real confidence in. Though we certainly have the capacity to have a feeling of confidence about them
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But obviously, any hypothesis which maintains unverifiablility and unfalsifiability at its core is a bunch of wank as far as actually providing any explanation in which we can have real confidence in. Though we certainly have the capacity to have a feeling of confidence about them.
Humans have an almost endless capacity for self delusion. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024