Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tell me why supernatural explanations of phenomena should be considered.
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 31 of 56 (262679)
11-23-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by robinrohan
11-23-2005 10:54 AM


Re: For iano
"You sure Robin? You telling me the truth? You promise? Er...okay then... Here goes...."
(sound ripping tissue paper)
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!!! Robin - you lying bastard you...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH"
(sound of frantic attempt to cellotape the tissue paper back together again..but it won't work. "So that's what the moral of the Humpty Dumpty story was!")
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHH!!"
(sound of a revolvers chamber being loaded with a single bullet..."might as well make it as much 'fun' as I can")
whizz..
whizz..
whizz..
BAAAAANG!
Humanity is born at neutral sanity. God brings a man toward + sanity, Nihilism drives a man towards -sanity. Think positive Robin, thank positive Robin. Think-tank.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by robinrohan, posted 11-23-2005 10:54 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by robinrohan, posted 11-23-2005 12:41 PM iano has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 56 (262695)
11-23-2005 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by iano
11-23-2005 11:32 AM


the nihilistic church
This is off-topic, I think (in fact, I can't remember what this thread's about), but the point is, iano, I'm sick of thse Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses coming around here and knocking on my door and interfering with my important hobbies. Do I go to their houses and knock on their doors and prech nihilism? I do not.
But maybe I'll start. I'm going to write up a flyer and send it around announcing a new church, to be started by me. I don't know what the name of it is yet, since I just now thought of it. But it's going to be a nihilistic church. Two can play at this proselytizing game. Maybe they should get some of it back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 11-23-2005 11:32 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by iano, posted 11-23-2005 1:19 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 33 of 56 (262700)
11-23-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by robinrohan
11-23-2005 12:41 PM


Re: the nihilistic church
Me, I like it when JW's and Mormons come a-knocking. It's a bit like EvC - but without this tiresome typing gig. (a good question to draw the conversation quickly to a close is the old chesnut "But if it's about obeying the law/being good or else...what did Christ achieve on the cross?"). But maybe we don't get big guns deployed over here in Ireland
Dunno about the "Church of RobinRohan and the latter day Nihilists" though. Didn't its chief prophet Nietzsche go bonkers in the end?
Edited to better suggest a title for RR
This message has been edited by iano, 23-Nov-2005 06:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by robinrohan, posted 11-23-2005 12:41 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 34 of 56 (262761)
11-23-2005 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by robinrohan
11-22-2005 3:26 PM


RobinRohan writes:
But if they are real, they are supernatural, being incorporeal. Here is where the belief in the supernatural comes from.
So the numbers are only real because why? Because they can be provable through quantification? Why then is it so hard to quantify spiritual impartation??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by robinrohan, posted 11-22-2005 3:26 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 11-23-2005 10:24 PM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 35 of 56 (262785)
11-23-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phat
11-23-2005 8:42 PM


replication and independant confirmation.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 11-23-2005 8:42 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 36 of 56 (279888)
01-18-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gary
11-20-2005 11:00 PM


Should Belief be considered as relevant as evidence?
Gary writes:
I'm inclined to think, that supernatural events are all in the heads of the people experiencing them, the product of imagination, and in some cases, mental disorders. If that is the case, that they are all made up by the imagination, why should I accept supernatural explanations over explanations based at least somewhat on evidence? If I am wrong, and supernatural forces exist outside of the human mind, how can a supernatural phenomenon be identified? If it can be identified, is it no longer supernatural? If it is no longer supernatural after identification, what quality does a supernatural phenomenon have in the first place, to separate it from the natural world?
We have discussed the difference between a fact and a belief on this forum before, Gary. Some of us have had what we consider to be genuine "encounters" with the supernatural, yet have been unable to objectify it as a fact....it is at best a subjective belief that we have.
Christianity in general has been historically based on beliefs, however. Take the Virgin Birth as an example:
Safarti writes:
Theological significance of the Virginal Conception
The New Testament scholar C.E.B. Cranfield makes four points, which I summarise as follows:
a) The Virginal Conception does not prove the Incarnation, nor does it say that it could not have happened any other way. But it does point to the union of God and man in Christ.
b) God made a new beginning of the course of the history of his creation by becoming part of it, coming to rescue fallen humanity from sin.
c) Jesus is truly human. The Second Person of the Trinity took on full human nature while remaining fully God.
d) ”The Virginal Conception attests the fact that God’s redemption of His creation was by grace alone. . Our humanity, represented by Mary, does nothing more than just accept”and even that acceptance is God’s gracious gift.’
All of what Safarti asserts as theologically significant is based on faith and belief and not on any sort of established empirical fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gary, posted 11-20-2005 11:00 PM Gary has not replied

  
Hal Jordan
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 56 (279929)
01-18-2006 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gary
11-20-2005 11:00 PM


I think I see what you are saying.....
Recently, I found myself in a bit of a strange situation; after reading the many definitions for 'pagan', almost all of them applied to me..yet I am an atheist. I tend to follow where the evidence leads and so far, (as far as I have found) it does not lead to anything supernatural
Or does it?
You see, I cannot seem to make up my mind. I was a Christian for 10 years so faith is not a new concept at all. Why then, after 10 years living as a happy atheist did I 'feel' pulled toward paganism?
I have not found any evidence that supports anything supernatural, but still I feel something that makes me think that there may be something to it.
That's where I am now; in between really wanting to believe (but I do not why I am compelled to want to) and not being able to believe because of lack of evidence.
MAybe it's mental illness...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gary, posted 11-20-2005 11:00 PM Gary has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 01-19-2006 8:40 PM Hal Jordan has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 38 of 56 (280098)
01-19-2006 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hal Jordan
01-18-2006 6:42 PM


That's where I am now; in between really wanting to believe (but I do not why I am compelled to want to) and not being able to believe because of lack of evidence.
Hi HJ...and welcome to EvC.
Evidence for 'naturalistic' events is such because it can be quantified and measured and evaluated against some benchmarks which are considered as established moorings against which we push off. And the moorings are moorings because they possess specific characteristics, ie: they have grown out of repeated, predictable - thus measurable occurances.
There is no reason to suppose that evidence of supernatural events (if they exist) should conform to that which applies to natural events. Natural has characteristics (and is probably defined by) such predictability and/or measurable and/or repeatable. Super - which means outside or above - natural tells us by its very definition that predictable, repeatable, measurable might not apply. A least not in the traditional, limited, scientific sense.
If one demands of the supernatural that it's evidence conforms to that which is applicable to the natural then there is every reason to suppose we won't find evidence. We are measuring with the wrong tools. We would, I think, have to meet the evidence, if it exists, in the same way as we do for the natural - on 'its' terms - not our own.
This message has been edited by iano, 20-Jan-2006 02:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hal Jordan, posted 01-18-2006 6:42 PM Hal Jordan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Hal Jordan, posted 01-20-2006 7:23 AM iano has replied

  
Hal Jordan
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 56 (280201)
01-20-2006 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by iano
01-19-2006 8:40 PM


Is this a hijack?
Iano - That makes sense, maybe I've been looking at this from the wrong perspective; trying to view the supernatual through the natural lense.
Maybe my experiences as a Christian has made gun shy when discussing gods or goddesses...but I simply do not 'feel' that there are any. When I perform a ritual and I draw circle, I feel silly, like all that I am doing is walking in a circle; I do not feel any energy (good or bad, if indeed energy can be discussed using those terms)and therefore do not know if it is 'real' or not.
When I try to listen to the goddess or the gods, and I discover a revelation about myself or a particular situation in my life, how can I be sure that I am not merely working things out myself? How can I seperate my subconscience from the voice of the gods? Maybe the gods are truly within us, and they are us.
I apologize if this is spinning off topic; if so, let me know and I will propose a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 01-19-2006 8:40 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by iano, posted 01-20-2006 9:05 AM Hal Jordan has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 40 of 56 (280218)
01-20-2006 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hal Jordan
01-20-2006 7:23 AM


Embarking
I wouldn't worry too much about spinning off track HJ. This thread went quiet and many threads, if you join them a hundred or so post on, have drifted away from the OP. Admin will step in if they feel the need.
Maybe my experiences as a Christian has made gun shy when discussing gods or goddesses...but I simply do not 'feel' that there are any. When I perform a ritual and I draw circle, I feel silly, like all that I am doing is walking in a circle; I do not feel any energy (good or bad, if indeed energy can be discussed using those terms)and therefore do not know if it is 'real' or not.
I don't know where this discussion will end up so will just place some preliminary thoughts down around the subject.
Firstly, whereas new, natural situations give some measure of themselves, some handle with which to gauge them due to our prior experience of the natural, the supernatural, if it exists, won't. This due to our relative ignorance about it. It should thus be approached with caution. We should consider ourselves as little children wandering around the natural world. A medicinal pill may, to their inexperienced eyes have all the appearance of sweets but tucking in will bring disaster.
One basis we have for supposing there is a supernatural is the wealth of human experience that indicates there may be something in it. And whilst you yourself may not have had a direct experience of it which satisfies the (healthy) barriers you place up prior to being able to accept it, you will know that there are many who claim to have had proof which satisifies to the level which would probably satisfy you - were you in their shoes. That otherwise sensible, intelligent, discerning people say they have experienced the supernatural gives lie to simplistic dismissals which claim delusion and wishful thinking. There are other hints and clues to suggest the existance of a supernatural, but let notable evidence (not proof)in the form of human experience suffice for the moment and move on.
It seems to me that what is required in order to know for sure that there is a supernatural realm is of a higher order than simply feeling. Feelings can change and we cannot be too sure about why it is we feel the way we feel. No, it seems that in order to know that there is a supernatural we actually have to know it. For example, you don't just feel you exist, it cannot be proven absolutely that you do. But in so far as you can know anything, you know you exist. "Knowing" has an objective value (at least for you) that supercedes all other evidences. You may have a feeling about something only to have empirical evidence cause your opinion to change. Empirical evidence cannot however cause you to change the fact that you know something. Anything less that knowing is open to being demolished at some point - which means you can't rely on it to be true.
And it seems to me that it must be the supernatural which provides the knowing. Whilst you may take action in order to attempt to approach it, it must be the one to do the revealing. Drawing circles, praying, meditating etc might be tools that we can employ because other say that these have worked but until such time as the supernatural reveals itself to us personally we cannot know whether these tools are effectual or otherwise. We are always reliant on it to do the revealing.
And if we must rely on it then we are saying that the ball is in its court. If we acknowledge this then another sensible tool to apply is possibly humility. The admission "we rely on it" should make this plain. This is not to say that the supernatural is "bigger" than us - it could be "smaller" than us but if we want to know about it then humility is a good place to start. A birdwatcher who wants to see if the lesser-spotted widgerydoo is taking up residence in the woods doesn't go crashing around screaming "ARE THERE ANY WIDGERYDOOS HERE", he submits himself to its terms (although it is "lesser" than us) in order to glimpse it.
Thus, 3 suggestions for beginning an approach to the supernatural:
- a presumption that it exists (or temporary suspension of disbelief)
- caution
- humility

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hal Jordan, posted 01-20-2006 7:23 AM Hal Jordan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 11:44 AM iano has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 56 (280278)
01-20-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by iano
01-20-2006 9:05 AM


Re: Embarking
That otherwise sensible, intelligent, discerning people say they have experienced the supernatural gives lie to simplistic dismissals which claim delusion and wishful thinking.
Why? Seems to me that this speaks much more to the power and danger of the mind, that even the sensible and the intelligent are suseptible to its ability to decieve - perhaps more so - and we must all be very cautious.
It's like asserting that a man is honest, and that therefore, a statement he has made is known not to be a lie. It's circular reasoning. If, indeed, a person cannot discern between what really exists and what does not, then it seems to me that you have no basis to describe them as "discerning", just as a man who lies cannot be described as "honest."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by iano, posted 01-20-2006 9:05 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by iano, posted 01-20-2006 1:20 PM crashfrog has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 42 of 56 (280306)
01-20-2006 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
01-20-2006 11:44 AM


Re: Embarking
Why? Seems to me that this speaks much more to the power and danger of the mind, that even the sensible and the intelligent are suseptible to its ability to decieve - perhaps more so - and we must all be very cautious.
What value science then - if it relies on the sensible and intelligent application of the mind. A mind that can deceive to this extent - to allow us to know something that is not actually true.
And what use such a decieving mind when is comes to discerning where and where not to apply caution.
If, indeed, a person cannot discern between what really exists and what does not
I used the example of otherwise intelligent, discerning people being unlikely to be so massively deluded in a single area of their life - as evidence for the potential for the supernatural to exist. I didn't say it was proof - just evidence.
Have you got a rational for such delusion which doesn't cut your own throat in the process?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 11:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2006 1:45 PM iano has replied
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 3:38 PM iano has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 56 (280318)
01-20-2006 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by iano
01-20-2006 1:20 PM


Double Blind
Have you heard of "double blind" studies Iano? That is one of many techniques for reducing the danger of error.
The need for replication and clear statement of method are other methods. A strongly "adversarial" approach to examination of claims another.
Science is the best approach we have to dealing with human failings in preception. To the degree that the techniques can be applied we reduce the risk of these failings influencing the outcome. Sometimes we can get it close to zero other times not so close. Then, finally, we recognize the need for openness to correction because we can't get it to zero.
If you have a better way please let us know. There are frequent claims about the inadequacy of these technciques for arriving at a reasonable sure outcome but never any suggestions for improvement. You won't have any either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by iano, posted 01-20-2006 1:20 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by iano, posted 01-20-2006 2:16 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 44 of 56 (280326)
01-20-2006 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NosyNed
01-20-2006 1:45 PM


Re: Double Blind
Science is the best approach we have to dealing with human failings in preception
My comments are made in the light of Crashs assertion that the mind was capable of quite incredible levels of deceit.
I don't doubt what you say and I am not attacking science. But if the minds of otherwise intelligent, sensible and discerning people can be deceived into knowing something when it isn't really the case then knowing is rendered valueless. If that is so, how does one persons delusion checked against anothers provide us with any assurance that we are "close to zero" - if the idea that such internal checking will bring us close to zero is the product of deluded minds in the first place.
In short, what Crash proposes as being the deceit levels possible for the human mind means we cannot trust anything at all. If it can deceive that much then why should we trust it's deceit to be arrested at that level?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2006 1:45 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 01-20-2006 2:54 PM iano has replied
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 3:40 PM iano has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 45 of 56 (280335)
01-20-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by iano
01-20-2006 2:16 PM


Re: Double Blind
There is a problem in your assertion. Science does not simply rely on the subjective evalutations of individual witnesses. Science makes heavy use of objective measurement. It encourages independent investigation of claims - and any claim that has not been independantly confirmed has little standing in science. Science encourages criticism and skeptical evaluations of claims.
For a famous example of how intelligent and well-educated people can decieve themselves - and how science can expose the problem, consider the case of N-Rays:
Blondlot and N-rays - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
s

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by iano, posted 01-20-2006 2:16 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by iano, posted 01-20-2006 4:16 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024