Lets take a little break from politics and have us a real atheist conversation.
Personally, I’m open to the idea of the existence of supernatural phenomena, and I believe mainstream religions are actually complicated incomplete stories full of misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and half-truths.
Basically, I think that these stories are not as simple and straightforward as they seem to be to religious people. I feel like there is a lot more to them. Concluding that all these stories are just made up or came out of nowhere is kind of hard for me.
I do not currently believe in any supernatural anything, for the exact same reasons I do not believe in gods.
- There is no persuasive evidence of anything supernatural
- Many supernatural phenomena were discovered to have naturalistic explanations
- The only evidence provided for supernatural phenomena is anecdotal
It’s entirely possible for there to be supernatural stuff, but the time to believe it is when it is demonstrated.
One point that I don’t see raised a lot is that otherwise perfectly mentally healthy people can experience hallucinations. They may even find them comforting, and some even then do not believe the visions are real. I have a suspicion that a lot of ghost sightings, etc, might be such hallucinations. But I can’t demonstrate that, and I’m honestly not sure how we could, unless we can find a way to trigger such hallucinations on purpose.
Most ghost sightings happen in low lighting when our brains are trying to fill the gaps of limited information. Evolution taught meat to think and it doesn’t do the best job at times.
Well it is better (for survival) to imagine a predator than to imagine an ice cream truck.
I suppose I’m more thinking about examples like one in this comment section where they see a ghost sober in the middle of the day.
Don’t forget carbon monoxide poisoning most likely contributed significantly to ghost stories before the risks of indoor fires for heat were known.
Agreed. I had a ghost encounter in 2019, as an atheist with no supernatural beliefs since 2007. I knew in the moment that it was a hallucination, but accepted it as an emotional release for what it seemed to be at the time.
While James Randi was alive, he offered $1,000,000 for proof of the supernatural. He never got that proof. I think that’s pretty telling.
There’s stuff I’ve experienced that I can’t understand or explain. Certainly, I trust other’s witnesses of their own experiences, even if they seem supernatural to me. But, I don’t consider that good enough evidence to believe in the supernatural.
Unexplained does not mean unexplainable nor supernatural.
There are all kinds of things in my life I have experienced that I cannot explain. For one thing, I am not an expert on everything. For another, I am a prisoner inside a skull that has to rely on not especially precise equipment in terms of sensory input. In other words, the meat sacks in our heads cannot be trusted. In fact, going back to Randi, if they could be trusted, Randi and other magicians would never have a job.
None of that is evidence for the supernatural.
Let me preface this by saying I tend to go with the Null hypothesis until proven otherwise, and as such don’t believe in the unproven supernatural.
Regardless, there are two ways to interpret James Randi never getting proof.
- There are no provable supernatural claims.
- Those who could prove a supernatural claim have
no use forsome reason a $1,000,000 prize would not be sufficiently enticing.
Edit: Reworked #2 for accuracy and clarity. Added wording in italics.
Re number. 2, they must also either be ignorant of the existence of charities or can’t think of a single one that could use that $1,000,000 they would have no use for. So I don’t accept that.
Perhaps. Though it’s entirely conceivable that the cost of revealing said supernatural proof would be detrimental to their life in such a way that no use of a $1,000,000 would justify it. Or, ala Mr. Manhattan, they have lost their empathy and/or worldly concern. Or they could just be massive dicks who could make $1,000,000 easier if their secret is kept, like Hayden Christensen in Jumper.
So I stand by my point that only looking at James Randi’s $1,000,000 prize as proof that “there are no supernatural claims that can be proven” is an example of sampling bias.
Assuming the correctness of a hypothesis without sufficiently disproving potentially valid alternatives is how we wound up with the acceptance of the supernatural. It’s just bad epistemology.
Regardless, I believe that James Randi’s offer, combined with the lack of any other provable and sufficiently documented supernatural occurrences means it’s more than reasonable to not hold any belief in the supernatural. I certainly don’t myself.
ETA: 3. I suppose a third possibility is they were unable/unwilling to travel or were entirely unaware of said prize. Something like a hermetic monk for example.
If I had legit supernatural powers, $1,000,000 would be chump change to reveal those powers. No way.
Yeah that’s dr evil in the 90s thinking. Manipulate the stock exchange and cash out 100 billion.
Bro, what is a hermetic monk 💀.
Definition taken from Merriam Webster (note: I’ve removed definitions not pertinent to my usage)
hermetic adjective
- b: Relating to or characterized by subjects that are mysterious and difficult to understand: Relating to or characterized by occultism or abstruseness
a hermetic discussion
- b: impervious to external influence
trapped inside the hermetic military machine
c: recluse, solitary
leads a hermetic life
So in this context, I guess I’m using both meanings. As in they are isolated monks with knowledge of the occult and esoteric.
There is no such thing as a hermetic monk. Hermeticism is a philosophy.
Hemeticism is certainly a philosophy, however the term hermetic monk is often used to denote a member of an isolated monastic group.
ex. Article on hermetic monks in Big Sur
A paywalled article referring to hermetic monks in France
None of the aforementioned monks were practitioners of Hermeticism. So while it may not be fully accurate to the origins of Hermeticism, the term “hermetic monk” does infact exist and is infact used to refer to members of esoteric isolated monastic groups.
Beyond that, the term “hermetic”, as cited by Merriam Webster, does apply to my usage. So if you would rather read it as a “monk who is hermetic by nature”, that would also get my same point across while avoiding confusion with Hermeticism as a philosophy.
I’ll believe anything you tell me, including gods and magic, as long as you can present evidence appropriate to your claim. Anyone who wants me to believe what they’re saying about anything divine or supernatural had better be able to back it up, or else I’m going to laugh in their face.
An interesting case for you to dive into: The Skinwalker Ranch.
I was quite interested in Snikwalker ranch for a hot second like 2 years ago, and what I can say is: There’s no real evidence of anything supernatural, most of the claims are unverifiable and made by people who wanna believe in the first place, the previous owner of the ranch claimed they made up the supernatural bits to sell it, and every popular bit of information about is coded in scary music and spooky effects on TV programmes. I’d actually like to see if you got any like, scientific articles about it, because I never went that far with my interest. Just seems like a ranch with weird radio interference on Tuesdays. I’m open to accepting the existence of supernatural stuff, but evidence wise, I’ve never seen anything conclusive.
Why would I be interested in alien ghost stories? Cattle mutilation and alien abduction aren’t credible examples of the supernatural.
You’re reluctant for some reason. If you don’t challenge your beliefs, how do you expect to grow? There’s more to it than just cattle mutilations and alien abductions.
Okay, I’m listening. Show me the evidence. Explain the supernatural to me.
Definition. I’ve already given you something to dive into. The Skinwalker Ranch. You can listen to the story on this channel. Great voice, and visuals.
If you don’t have anything to offer, don’t waste my time. I’m not interested in someone else’s explanation, and I know the definition. I want to see how you justify the claim. I’ll bet a thousand dollars cash that you can’t back it up. I’m confident in making that bet because if you could, you’d be the first.
Sorry but I’m going to call out what I see as some pretty blatant motte-and-bailey argumentation by the OP and their offense taken to people trying to nail down the definition of supernatural is illustrative.
They have their bailey, belief in things like the occult, ghosts, demons, etc, that are almost certainly bullshit. To the extent that they can be falsified, they have been. This is the typical definition of what people think when you say “supernatural” and people are right to answer “no” when asked if they believe in it.
But then you have OP falling back on their motte when this happens, taking a nebulous definition of supernatural and asking rhetorical philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown. The fallacy is that these questions do nothing to strengthen or refute the original argument about the supernatural.
Nobody is here to argue that nothing is unknown and even unknowable but that doesn’t make the things that people typically call “supernatural” any less bullshit. Demons and ghosts are just not the kinds of things that are waiting around to surprise us. And shifting the conversation from your bailey to your motte to protect your feelings on the former is not a good way to have a friendly debate.
All that aside, if you are interested in expanding your understanding of the universe then I’d really encourage you to divert the effort you’re putting into the “supernatural” into learning about the actual natural universe instead. Our universe really is fantastic on its own. There’s plenty of interesting, wacky, and unknown things happening all around us that you can learn about without resorting to magic. If anything, magic is the boring answer imo.
They have their bailey, belief in things like the occult, ghosts, demons, etc, that are almost certainly bullshit. To the extent that they can be falsified, they have been. This is the typical definition of what people think when you say “supernatural” and people are right to answer “no” when asked if they believe in it.
You say that people are right to answer “no” when asked if they believe in this stuff. That is just not true at all. That’s because that as much as good evidence can be hard to come by for supernatural stuff, there is also no official evidence whatsoever that proves that such things do not exist. Therefore, the most accurate answer should really be “I don’t know”, because of the subject’s unfalsifiable nature, and how it’s outside scientific testing. You still have a right to say “yes”, or “no” though.
But then you have OP falling back on their motte when this happens, taking a nebulous definition of supernatural and asking philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown. The fallacy is that these questions do nothing to strengthen or refute the original argument about the supernatural.
That “nebulous” definition of supernatural that I keep using IS the literal definition of the word. You even described it yourself how I described it on your second paragraph, first line. Yes, I have been “asking philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown”. And why can’t I do that? My post is an open-ended question. This means that the conversation can go anywhere, provided that the context continues to match the topic of the post. What do you mean by “original argument about the supernatural”? Again, this post is meant to be an open-ended question where others contribute their thoughts on the supernatural, I share my opinions on their thoughts, and we agree, or disagree. There is no “original argument about the supernatural”.
Nobody is here to argue that nothing is unknown and even unknowable but that doesn’t make the things that people typically call “supernatural” any less bullshit. Demons and ghosts are just not the kinds of things that are waiting around to surprise us. And shifting the conversation from your bailey to your motte to protect your feelings on the former is not a good way to have a friendly debate.
Actually, people here have argued such, as supernatural phenomena is a mysterious topic. Nowhere have I declared that there are no BS claims in the supernatural world. However, saying that all supernatural claims are complete BS without evidence supporting it is a biased take. Some are debunked, and some aren’t, which is how we end up with unexplained claims that are beyond rational explanation. A scenario like this is the reason why we should stay open-minded about supernatural phenomena, instead of completely denouncing it.
I’ll tell you why I say the answer is no to whether or not the occult, demons, or ghosts exist. There’s a phenomenon in statistics where if you were to select a random element from an infinite set of equally probable elements, the probability that a specific element will be selected is 0%. Not close to 0, literally 0.
These kinds of supernatural phenomena that have no evidence belong to an infinite set of equally unlikely phenomena with no evidence. Their likelihood of being real is 0%. Only when phenomena has some tangible evidence explaining it can we elevate it to a finite set with a non-zero likelihood of being real.
If that’s your stance, it’s ok. We can agree to disagree. I still choose to sit on the fence.
…there is also no official evidence whatsoever that proves that such things do not exist
That statement right there sums up the problem.
No, you cannot prove that the supernatural does not exist. The same way you cannot prove that god doesn’t exist, or that there isn’t a teakettle in orbit around the sun between Venus and Mercury. The lack of evidence against their existence is not evidence for it. However, since there have been so many claims of supernatural phenomena, gods and near-sun teakettles, and none of them have been shown to be true, I feel confident in saying that they don’t exist.
Here are some interesting counterpoints though…
The James Randi prize has never been claimed. No person has been able to demonstrate the existence of supernatural phenomena in order to claim an easy 1 million dollars.
Everything that has ever been discovered has turned out to be not magic.
Yes, that’s what I said. No one has ever proven that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, you can’t completely denounce it. This concept is also applied in Science. It’s why I said that the most accurate answer you can give is “I don’t know”, if asked if you believe in it. As for James Randi, other factors can contribute to why no one showed him anything. One can be word of his challenge not getting to enough people. Like me. This is the first time I’ve heard of him and his challenge. Another one can be those who actually had something to show wanting privacy. Another can be disinterest, gatekeeping… etc. There’s many factors. If you’re interested, the story of The Skinwalker Ranch is a bizzare unexplained case involving the supernatural that you can dive into if you’re looking to research this stuff. I recommend listening to it on this channel. The guy behind it has a great voice, and nice visuals. You should also check out this channel. It’s great for skeptics, because the guy behind it debunks what he can, and leaves it for you to decide what to think of it.
You should definitely read the “criticisms” page on the Skinwalker Ranch wikipedia. Then you might know who James Randi was. Dude was a famous magician, and had multiple TV shows. I’d say for sure he’s more famous than Robert Munroe or the Skinwalker Ranch.
There are obviously criticisms lol. What supernatural case doesn’t have any? I still recommend checking it out though. There’s a lot to the story.
No, it looks like there is nothing to the story, other than a few local legends and gullible rube with a lot of money.
Can you link to raw video or photos of paranormal events there?.. Because all I see when I look around is dopey conspiracy theorists fucking around in the scrub
If you don’t want to check it out, that’s fine. I can’t force you to. We can agree to disagree.
Paraphrasing I believe — Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
No nothing is “supernatural “. We may not yet know what we’re seeing or exactly what happened… we simply don’t understand it yet.
Yet is relevant point there IMHO. We will.
and not understanding how something functions isnt a reason to assign intent or awareness to the thing.
But there is also a possibility that what we don’t understand transcends the laws of nature. That’s what supernatural means. A possibility that our universe is also governed by supernatural forces, as much as it is governed by natural forces.
If something can “transcend” the laws of nature, then the ability to do that is part of the laws of nature, and thus it transcends nothing. We just didn’t know all of the rules.
If ghosts are real, then they aren’t breaking the rules of nature because clearly the rules of nature allow for ghosts, we just don’t understand how yet, but then ghosts are natural.
By definition, anything real is natural, and anything supernatural is not.
But we still need the word “supernatural” to describe such things. Otherwise, what do we call the phenomena?
Fictional
That’s just a weak reformulation of the “God of the gaps” fallacy.
The difference is that science is observable and testable, god is not. This key difference, changes it from being a fallacy.
So, in the god of the gaps fallacy it goes like this:
- GotG: Something unknown = GOD!
- Science: Something unknown = “We don’t know!”
- GotG: Ghosts = GOD!!
- Science: Ghosts = “We need a way to reliably test and confirm!”
Science isn’t anti-god either. It’s just pro-knowledge. Observable, testable, verifiable knowledge.
Science isn’t anti-god either. It’s just pro-knowledge. Observable, testable, verifiable knowledge.
This part. If ghosts are observable, testable, and verifiable, then we would have a way of measuring things. Maybe ghosts are 4th dimensional entities. It’s very possible they are real and it’s purely something we haven’t been able to measure thus far.
Science gets stuff wrong all the time. The point of science is to be adapting and learning. And part of that involves verifying credibility of a new source of information.
Unfortunately, almost all of the sources of “proof” of things like ghosts are heavily biased in favor of proving things over disproving, and there are a lot of people throwing clear scams into the mix. Science needs to go in with an open mind. “I want ghosts to be real, and the wind moved this door, therefore it was a ghost” is not valid proof of ghosts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WohbNt18wNs Things like this. A pastor that can walk on air, which is clearly fake. If the pastor believed he could walk on air, why would he fake it. This is not proof that people CAN’T walk on air, but it’s a great example of why when someone claims they can, you should figure out why lying about it benefits them (this guy clearly wants more people to tithe to his church).
GotG benefits from the default being “GOD!” for all things, because it leaves them in power. Science has no benefit from anything except the truth. Sure there will be liars in science as well and a lot of people will optimistically want to believe the lies if they sound nice, but looking at things like LK-99, it winds up disproven when it’s a lie. Capitalism and industry don’t care about your fake superconductor. That doesn’t benefit them, they only care about real superconductors.
Saying that I’m making a god of the gaps argument would also mean that you are making a science of the gaps argument.
Except, when you fill the gaps with science, you have evidence and proof. Not superstition and ancient myth.
But you’re still leading yourself into a fallacious argument. It’s not any better.
It’s only a fallacious argument if you don’t say “we can’t answer that yet” and maybe add, “but here are some theories…”
“I don’t know” does not mean “therefore the supernatural is real.”
Er um— no.
There is nothing that is “supernatural “
There is nothing that is proven and repeated not beholden to the laws of nature.
Yes it is possible, but there isn’t any proof of anything transcending nature. You’re making a “god of the gaps” argument. It is illogical to assume that god or anything supernatural keeps getting smaller and smaller so as to hide in those ever shrinking gaps.
But we need a name to describe such extraordinary events. If you erase it, what do we call such phenomena? There’s a reason why the word exists. Also, saying that I’m making a god of the gaps argument would also mean that you are making a science of the gaps argument, where you assume that science will always have an answer, and that it is the only truth. It’s why I believe that it’s best to sit on the fence on this topic, your mind being open to ideas of supernatural phenomena, as you still consider rational scientific explanations.
This “then why do we have a word for that” is such a a strange argument
We also have a word for elves, doesn’t mean they exist
It’s the same logic I see people applying to Korean, with arguments like “they have no word for depression, therefore they’re happier”, completely ignoring the fact that they have a bridge called “suicide bridge” (guess why)
If you think the word supernatural is so unneeded, you can petition for it to be taken out of dictionaries and Wikipedia.
deleted by creator
Slight nitpick, I don’t “believe” there is no higher power. I don’t believe in any of the claims people have made that a higher power exists. By default we don’t believe in anything.
I think it’s hard to find “true experiences with the supernatural” credible because even if the person believes it happened: humans make for awful sensors. They might feel warm when they’re cold or vice versa. They regularly see things that don’t exist. More than half of us appear to be some kind of moron.
And why would a ghost be unmeasurable? Why could something be truly ethereal when everything ever measured or recorded is not? Plus, the seemingly random limitations on any sort of fairy, ghost, or deity make it pretty much dead in the water as far as theories go. Imagine this, you’re some kind of land-god of wealth and/or stealing and potentially eating babies. But you go years or decades without fulfilling your own theme or being seen by humans? And you can’t leave your territory as defined by human maps like you need permission from city councilmen?
All of this on top of the belief I hold that life is a culmination of billions of tiny mechanisms that, upon systemic failure, result in something akin to gears no longer turning in a clock means: either machinery and electronics all have “souls” or humans don’t. Where would you draw the line? Do waterfalls have souls? The grand canyon? Dogs?
So pretty unlikely, all things considered.
People do not understand that visual hallucinations can happen to anyone when they are sober. Our brains are not perfect machines.
Overall, 84.8 percent of the volunteers that took part in the study reported having experienced some form of anomalous visual experiences in their life. More than a third of them (37.8 percent) reported that they had experienced an actual visual hallucination similar to what a patient with a psychotic disorder may experience. When the scientists analyzed the additional questions of whether an experience would agree with a clinical definition of visual hallucinations, about 17.4 percent of volunteers had experienced a hallucination that met these criteria.
And I’m guessing the other 15.2 either didn’t remember or didn’t really understand the question.
It’s even more a problem with hearing things that aren’t there or, far more commonly, just hearing something but misidentifying it. The whole EVP thing that “paranormal investigators” are so fond of is all about hearing a sound and just assuming that sound is a voice because of our flawed brains (and flawed ears).
Humans seem to be wired to be like this. That’s why pareidolia is a thing.
Honestly, 15% sounds like it’s right in the range of the number of people who will just lie on surveys - be it purposefully or not – in order to present a superior version of themselves to a piece of paper.
Supernatural phenomena do not actually exist as far as I can tell. There’s no actual evidence to my knowledge, and plenty of evidence that humans are not particularly good at perceiving or interpreting the universe around us as it actually is. Our brains are not a reliable narrator, supernatural phenomena are most likely a consequence of this rather than anything genuinely supernatural.
This argument is a very common one. It’s only valid at a scientific standpoint, since you can’t really scientifically prove something that transcends the laws of nature. However, at a historical standpoint, the existence of supernatural phenomena can be considered. There is also no evidence that supernatural phenomena does not exist.
Any non-falsifiable theory is only worth so much.
And can still be considered.
Not really, because every non-falsifiable theory is true at the same time. I mean, I can’t forbid anyone from considering.
And that’s what I’m advocating. For people to sit on the fence, instead of leaning hard-science, or hard-supernatural.
You may have misunderstood me - supernatural theories are worthless because they are non-falsifiable.
That doesn’t make them worthless. Have you ever listened to stories that may involve potential supernatural forces?
I’m not sure what you mean about a historical standpoint. I don’t think there’s anything in the historical record that could be considered actual evidence of supernatural phenomena. History as an academic discipline is a kind of science and generally approaches the subject matter with the scientific method.
What? Supernatural stuff has been talked about throughout history.
I don’t think you have understood any of my points. Reread my previous comments, this is addressed.
-
60% the person experiencing it misunderstood or misinterpreted what they were looking at because they were stupid and gullible, but not maliciously making things up.
-
35% completely fabricated and never happened and created to legitimately defraud or troll others.
-
5% something scientific that we simply don’t understand yet.
-
0% actual supernatural occurrences.
That 5% is the most exciting thing in the world.
Completely agree.
What constitues “something scientific”? That sounds fascinating.
There’s a whole crap tonne about the universe we really don’t understand yet; especially when you get down to the quantum level, spooky action at a distance, wave functions, etc…
In a very real way, we’re still just cavemen banging on rocks as far as the sum total knowledge of how things work out there in what we call “reality”. So within that vast gap of what we know, and what we don’t know, there’s could be a lot of things going on.
Is that a ghost? or is that a momentary glitch in the fabric of space-time? Or is it just someone mistaking a cars headlight bouncing of a chandelier and into a door that is ajar at just the right angle. One of those theories is provable using the scientific method and the knowledge that we currently have. One of those theories might eventually be able to be proven with knowledge that we don’t yet possess. And one of those theories is so-called “supernatural”.
As a reasonable human with critical thinking skills, I’ll put my money on either of the last ones before I’ll put my money on the first.
spooky action at a distance
There is no “spooky action at a distance.” We know quantum mechanics does not contain anything that violates the speed of light limit because this is a requirement for special relativity, and quantum mechanics is mathematically compatible with special relativity. The unification of the two theories is known as quantum field theory. There is a proof called the No-communication Theory that shows that there is nothing you could ever do to a particle in an entangled pair that would alter the state of the particle it is entangled with. There is no actual “nonlocal” (faster-than-light) effects between them.
Claims that there is some sort of nonlocal effects either come from bizarre philosophical arguments where you (for some reason) claim that the wave function represents a literal physical entity floating out there in an infinitely dimensional space whereby the observer effect causes it to “collapse” like a house of cards into a single particle (this is just pure fantasy, nothing in the mathematics of the theory demands you believe this), or it comes from people misunderstanding Bell’s theorem and believing it proves the universe has nonlocal effects, when Bell’s theorem only shows that if you add hidden variables to quantum mechanics then you must introduce nonlocal effects. Since quantum mechanics is not a hidden variable theory, there is no need for nonlocal effects.
wave functions
The wave function can be used to pick a value from a list of probability amplitudes, and this list of probability amplitudes is called the state vector. The state vector has a probability amplitude for each possible outcome, and each probability amplitude is related to the likelihood of a particular possible outcome occurring. Quantum mechanics assumes nature behaves fundamentally randomly, so the best you can do is make statistical predictions in terms of probabilities.
In a very real way, we’re still just cavemen banging on rocks as far as the sum total knowledge of how things work out there in what we call “reality”. So within that vast gap of what we know, and what we don’t know, there’s could be a lot of things going on.
There doesn’t need to be a “deeper” explanation. It’s like the kid who always asks “why.” There can’t always be an answer to the question. Eventually you just have to shrug your shoulders and say, “it is what it is.” Otherwise, you get an infinite regress. You have to stop somewhere, and it makes sense to me to stop at our most fundamental scientific theories. Sure, “there could be a lot of things going on,” there could be a clown hiding your cupboards, I could be the King of England talking to you right now. Vaguely speculating on how something “could” be possible does not actually, in and of itself, make it reasonable to believe it in it.
Of course, it is always possible all our theories are wrong and get overturned in a major way, but actually believing it is wrong would require an enormous amount of evidence. I stick to interpreting the natural world based on what our best scientific theories for the time tell us. Even if it turns out to be wrong, such as with Newtonian mechanics, well, Newton still had a much more accurate understanding of nature than someone who bases their understanding of nature off of nothing. The fact our theories could potentially be proven wrong is not a good reason to believe in total unjustified nonsense. Whatever you believe in should be well-substantiated by the evidence.
The fact our theories could potentially be wrong, I do not think this is good justification for resorting to pure utilitarianism either, as if we should refuse to ever interpret the natural world because any interpretation has the potential to change one day. Pure utilitarians just treat scientific theories as merely predictive tools, but do not say anything about nature. I prefer to just say we should embrace the change. My understanding of nature is dependent upon our best scientific theories for the time. If, in a thousand years, there is a breakthrough that changes this, I would have still had a better understanding of nature than someone who based their beliefs off of something different than the natural sciences. If that breakthrough happens tomorrow, well, I’d be happy to change my mind. It’s not an issue.
“Provable”? Nah. I prefer “useful”.
This desire for “Truth” is strange to me. I see no necessary connection between ideas and phenomena.
Lies can be useful. They cal also be dangerous.
Preferring possible usefulness to truth is alarming.
I see no necessary connection between ideas and phenomena
That’s fair enough. You’re welcome to live however you want to. I’m just explaining the difference between science and mysticism. It’s not going to affect the average person’s life in any fashion whether they believe in ghosts or not; they’ll still go to work, buy groceries, get old and die.
But the rejection of science leads inexorably down to a path where a cult of ignorance starts to form; where those who aren’t intellectually curious but still want to have an opinion on stuff start to think that their opinion is just as valid as actual facts. And we see what happens when that kind of willful ignorance works its way into the public discourse.
In short, you’re welcome to not differentiate between ideas and actual scientific phenomena. But someone has to, because society only functions when decisions are made by people who share the same basic knowledge of reality.
I’m not rejecting science. I think it’s fine.
What is a “scientific phenomenon”?
Something that is able to potentially be explained by following the scientific method.
That covers all phenomena, surely
What is useful for me may not be useful for you. It may be useful for me to tell some sort of slanderous lie about you to all of your neighbors. I assume you would desire the truth in that sort of situation.
That is why truth is more important than utility. Utility is subjective. Truth is not.
-
“Fifty thousand years ago there were these three guys spread out across the plain and they each heard something rustling in the grass. The first one thought it was a tiger, and he ran like hell, and it was a tiger but the guy got away. The second one thought the rustling was a tiger and he ran like hell, but it was only the wind and his friends all laughed at him for being such a chickenshit. But the third guy thought it was only the wind, so he shrugged it off and the tiger had him for dinner. And the same thing happened a million times across ten thousand generations - and after a while everyone was seeing tigers in the grass even when there were`t any tigers, because even chickenshits have more kids than corpses do. And from those humble beginnings we learn to see faces in the clouds and portents in the stars, to see agency in randomness, because natural selection favours the paranoid. Even here in the 21st century we can make people more honest just by scribbling a pair of eyes on the wall with a Sharpie. Even now we are wired to believe that unseen things are watching us.”
― Peter Watts, Echopraxia
The only phenomenon that I take seriously as potentially supernatural, or connected to something we have no way of explaining is the experience of consciousness.
Fair. You should check out Robert Monroe.
I think it’s highly unlikely and the universe is amazing and bizarre enough without us imagining outside forces acting on it.
Our Brains are a meat pudding that runs on less electricity than a light bulb. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to get some hallucinations and signal interference. Especially when the pudding is stressed or poisoned . Plus we straight up know there are senses and ranges of senses we do not perceive. Reality is another thing all together through the eyes of a mantis shrimp. Our perception is incredibly biased and limited, so miracles (magic) are an easy explanation when our senses fail us.
Some say that our brains are actually filters. What we perceive is just what your brain lets us perceive, and that there’s more to the universe than we could ever comprehend.
deleted by creator
I disagree. Supernatural is anything that transcends the laws of nature. Something that transcends the laws of nature is not natural.
To paraphrase Tim Minchin, the supernatural has either not been proved to exist or has been proved to not exist.
If you can test it - it’s natural. If you can’t test it - you can’t prove it even exists.
Inability to test something does not prove it doesn’t exist.
It doesn’t prove it, no, but it doesn’t need to. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim, so any claim should come with a way to test it. Otherwise, you can ALWAYS say, “Well, the flying spaghetti monster did it. You can’t prove me wrong.”
What are the laws of nature? You keep saying that as if it proves something but haven’t defined it. Where do the laws come from?
The laws of physics, biology… blah blah blah. I really wish we’d stop arguing about the definition, because it won’t really go anywhere. You know what I mean when I say supernatural.
Proofs start from axioms, which the ‘laws of nature’ as defined by you, are not. I don’t know what you mean, which is why I asked. You’re only revealing your own lack of critical thought here, this isn’t a gotcha like you think it is.
What do you mean by gotcha? I think you’re just being difficult really.
No I just come from a STEM background where we have a bit of a rigorous process for concluding that something is true. You’re starting with the conclusion and saying everybody else is stupid and difficult who points out the flaws in your logic.
I don’t know what STEM has to do with supernatural phenomena but ok. I also have a STEM background, but I haven’t mentioned it until now because it’s not relevant. I have not called anyone stupid here. The reason why I’m saying you’re being difficult, is because you are so fixated on the definition of the word supernatural, that you’re missing the whole point of this discussion. Even the mod called this out somewhere in this comment section. Most people here just want to be dictionaries, that they’re missing the deeper part of the conversation.
I’m a strict naturalist - I believe that supernatural phenomena do not exist. I do not believe in the unknown.
deleted by creator
Why? Supernatural phenomena isn’t really generally unknown.
What do you mean? That people experience supernatural phenomena?
If they didn’t, they would it be a thing?
Ok. I don’t believe they do experience supernatural. I think people are gullible, only selectively critical, and are often influenced by their culture to believe in supernatural explanations. And some people are just frauds. I believe honest people get tricked by their culture to regard unknown as supernatural, and by accepting that explanation, never find the natural behind the unknown.
