Studying the supernatural

As I understand the concept - No. Bigfoot is not supernatural. Like the concept of Nessie it is some sort of rare creature. But there is nothing that defines it as magical or unbounded by natural laws in any way. Now unicorns and dragons are (by most common definitions) a different kettle of fish. No - Why would they be? As I understand the concept of a ghost - Yes. The spirits of the dead are not bounded by physical laws. They are part of some ethereal existence which cannot be explored fully by science for some unstated reason. Instead one has to "open one's mind"......But I guess it depends exactly what definition of "ghost" one is talking about.Ultimately "supernatural" means those things which are defined as being inherently immune from physical explanation. Most believers in gods (for example) don't define the object of their belief as something which if we could just build a powerful enough particle accelerator we could investigate and understand. They instead imply that no such technological progress will ever allow the object of that belief to be physically explained.NOTE - Being materially inexplicable does NOT necessarily mean being materially undetectable or unable to be investigated. It simply means natural laws won't be able to explain it. It's "magic". Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Doh

Hi 1.61803 (and fellow readers), So if god/s exist then they are natural rather than supernatural?Isn't that kind of reverse god-of-the-gaps?Perhaps we should recognize\define\use "natural" to include all things\elements\aspects\etc that can be studied by science (which should be rather tautological, but done to make a point),And recognize\define\use "un-natural" to include all things\elements\aspects\etc that can be studied by science but that run counter to existing\current scientific knowledge⁽¹⁾ -- which would also include sasquatch, aliens, and faster than light neutrinos, as well as some supernatural aspects.And then recognize\define\use "everything else" to be both non-natural & non-unatural ... or "a-natural" - things\elements\aspects\etc that canNOT be studied by science for various reasons.Thus aspects of ghosts that can be detected\studied by science would be "un-natural" phenomena, while aspects of god/s that cannot be detected\studied by science would be "a-natural" phenomena.Supernatural⁽²⁾ aspects, such as the ability to fly by "magic" would be detectable "un-natural" phenomena, while something like {where god/s live} could be outside the capability of science to detect\observe\test\etc and would then be "a-natural"Note that these "examples" are only for illustration of the differences, and I offer these terms as a means to provide clarity between (Message 1):

quote:

---

II. Yes, of course
...The thing is, science investigates what can detected. ...

---

and

quote:

---

I. Intrinsically, no
Science studies the natural and so by definition can not investigate the supernatural. ...

---

Because, personally, I do not see these categories as being necessarily one or the other exclusive -- ie both could be valid aspects of the debate/s, and I do see some confusion between {testable supernatural aspects} and {untestable supernatural aspects}.Enjoy.

---

⁽¹⁾ - the necessarily tentative kind of knowledge usage in science, of course ⁽²⁾ - Supernatural Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

su•per•nat•u•ral
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

---

Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty

Hello Zen Deist, No, because God as I understand him to be described exist OUTSIDE and prevades the universe, in addition to being part of the universe. This would therefore make such a God supernatural.In Catholic dogma, God is not only a intrinsic part of the universe but is also separate from it. The universe and all that exist derives it's existence or being from him/it.Reverse "God of the Gaps" to say we cant explain the supernatural yet, but once more comes to light perhaps we can.
Like thunder was attributed to Thor and now has a scientific explanation. Yes, if some scientist tomorrow provided scientific evidence to explain ghost, I would no longer call them supernatural.

Hi nwr, Partly correct: science explains how natural systems operate, thus science shows how lightening and thunder occur, but science does not explain whether or not Thor (etc)⁽¹⁾ used those processes to cause thunder and lightening. Whether "Thor" exists and uses these processes to cause thunder and lightening is "a-natural" and/but unnecessary to the scientific explanation of how thunder and lightening occur.The (an)other side of this issue - particularly as it impacts this thread - is the "believer" claim that "Thor" causes thunder and lightening, thunder and lightening exist, therefore this is evidence for the existence of "Thor" (the affirming the consequent logical fallacy of course). This can be regarded as "inductive logic⁽²⁾", a conjecture, a guess or an hypothesis, but it is (currently) not a testable concept as I see it.Enjoy

---

⁽¹⁾ - there are lots of god/s that are purported to cause thunder and lightening, and for the purposes of debate we can consider them all to be the same god under different names, and use "Thor" as the useful designational name.⁽²⁾ inductive logic is guilty of the same affirming the consequent logical fallacy in the formation of scientific (or other) hypothesis, but the intention is to produce a testable concept, rather than one considered to be true (or true until falsified), and where (scientific) testing of the concept can turn it into a (scientific) theory (or even a law).

I've never really understood the difference between "natural" and "supernatural."It seems to me that there two sets: things that exist, and things that do not exist. We can add a third set, things that conceivably may exist but for which there is no evidence...but eventually if all things were known, everything that could conceivably exist would fit into one of those first two sets - either it exists or it doesn't.Let's stick with ghosts, since they're less emotionally-charged than deities tend to be. Ghosts are a conceivable possibility by a completely unknown mechanism; they're a popular hypothesis to explain a widely disparate set of phenomenon (we'll leave aside for now the discussion on whether they actually serve that purpose well). At the end of the day, however, either ghosts exist, or they do not.Is it that mysteriousness that makes them qualify as "supernatural?" Is that just a label that we apply to conceivably possible things when we don't know the mechanism that could be involved? Is it a label that we apply when a hypothesis seems to contradict other, more certain theories about reality, and we're just either too lazy to try to figure out the real rules that reality is using that explain all of the phenomenon, or too stubborn to let go of a hypothesis that we really like?As far as I'm concerned, any conceivable entity either exists or it does not. When some observation suggests a mysterious mechanism, such as contradicting well-established physical laws, I don't think it's appropriate to create a brand new subset of things that exist but which are somehow separate from the rest of reality.If it can be observed, it can be studied. Just because something has a mysterious mechanism doesn't mean it's an "exception" to the laws of reality - it just means we don't understand everything about reality yet. That's fine, I was never under the presumption that humanity had figured it all out yet. If the thing is conscious and intentionally avoids detection in most circumstances...well, that just means it's difficult to study, not that it's outside the realm of human understanding. And even if it were incomprehensible, that wouldn't mean it's somehow an exception to the laws of reality. Once again, it would just mean that the laws of reality are different to some degree from what we currently think they are, and we already know that to be near-certainly true.

Oddly, you seem intent on alienating potential allies. You're misinterpreting what Nwr is referring to when he says science transforms supposed supernatural phenomena into natural phenomena. He's not referring to Thor.--Percy

Hi Rahvin, thanks. A more generic term may be spirits, which are found in (almost?) all religions (afaik), from the simple ancestor spirits of chinese belief to the various spirits of native american beliefs.

1. Can spirits exist and (theoretically) be detectable?
   (but just have not been detected in a objectively controlled system)
2. Can spirits exist and not be (theoretically) detectable?
   (and can you tell the difference between this and non-existence?)
3. Can some actions of non-detectable spirits (theoretically) be detectable?
   (the movement of objects by "poltergeists" for example)
4. Can the existence of spirits be inferred from the (theoretically) detectable actions?
   (or will natural causes be invoked in some manner? or will they just be labeled "unexplained" phenomena?)

It seems to me a more nuanced approach may be more appropriate than just {exist/not-exist}. As an example, the attribute of ghosts/spirits to move through walls\etc. would be "un-natural" (unexplained?)^(a) behavior, however there is another conceivable possibility here (imho):Another common thread in beliefs about spirits is in the ability of "possession" of individuals by spirits, and that they can then cause the people to do or see (un-natural) things that they would not normally (naturally) do or see.In this regard, a vision of a ghost as a 4-D (space/time) hologram injected into a persons visual nerves would have the appearance of an object moving independently and unaffected by the physical world seen through the normal vision paths: one image superimposed on the other, a double exposure experience^(b).Is this testable? Is possession in general testable?Would you agree that the "natural" explanation would be that it is an hallucination, produced by abnormal (non-normal ... un-normal?) behavior inside the brain, rather than an actual event? Any testing by cat-scans etc could be shown to be entirely consistent with the "natural" hallucination hypothesis\explanation, ... and yet we are left with the "thor question" -- is this just how the spirit causes the phenomena to occur, or is it just a natural mechanism? Interesting assertions. I would only add that there may be some aspects that cannot be explained and understood via science, perhaps because the experiences\observations may be chaotic in nature, with results that are not repeatable.Enjoy.

---

Notes:
^(a) - edited phrase to correct: was {would be "non-natural" behavior}
^(b) - added ending for clarityEdited by Zen Deist, : corrected, added phrasingEdited by Zen Deist, : a & b vs 1 & 2

And yet even though you say all that you are apparently on the other side from me in this argument. So, explain to me. What is there in all that you've conceded that should delay me one nanosecond from saying: "I don't believe that Thor causes thunder"?

Hi Dr Adequate, Nothing: you can have your opinion\belief\guess based on the things you know (tentatively), the things you think you know (but are not validated) and your personal world view/s.Just as what you have conceded cannot delay me from being open minded but skeptical.Enjoy.

Fortunately, we are in no danger of burning one another at the stake.Really, what are you getting at here? This is a dispute about epistemology. You seem to be suggesting that Straggler (and, by implication, other atheists) would be tactically better off if we could all harmoniously and insincerely agree on one orthodox conception of epistemology which we could all pretend that we believed to be true. Then we'd all be "allies" on this subject. Also hypocrites.Straggler is in fact wrong on certain issues, but he thinks that he's right, and I don't see why he should affirm things that he thinks are wrong just to gain "allies" against theism.

I find that a bit evasive.You describe yourself as "open minded but skeptical". I describe myself the same way. In fact, I have never met anyone who describes themselves as "closed-minded and gullible".What I want to know is --- given that we have apparently very similar epistemologies, how does it come about that I'm an atheist and yet you're a deist who goes around condemning atheists as closed-minded pseudoskeptics? At what point does your epistemology start to differ from mine such that it is "closed-minded" and "pseudoskeptical" for me to say such things as: "I don't believe in gods"; "I don't believe in werewolves"; "I don't believe in fairies"; "I don't believe in unicorns"?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It seemed to me that Straggler was disagreeing as strenuously with Nwr as he would with anyone from the opposite side of the divide. It seemed more like a minor difference about how to group and label things.The real issue is that any thread in which both Straggler and RAZD participate eventually ends up discussing the same thing. They're like a pair of carnivores who, game being scarce, take to fighting between themselves over scraps of little importance and then draw in the rest of the pack.--Percy

I'm not sure why you are making a reply to my post. It seems that your "reply" is entirely a response to the bullshit that Straggler has made up and has attempted to falsely impute to me.

Yes. Why shouldn't he? So that he can garner "allies"? To what cause? And so ... so ... so ... what, exactly? Should Straggler have pretended to agree with nwr about epistemology so that maybe he could then persuade him to gang up with him on RAZD?Is that the "real issue"?

I don't think science declares things as 'natural'. I don't think science cares. Philosophers (specifically, metaphysicians) are the ones that say things like this. Science just investigates what it can and some people label these things as 'natural'. I believe this is a way to artificially protect the supernatural (or rather as an explanatory framework, explaining why science hasn't confirmed the dearly held and sincere beliefs of some people).Your general point, however, is not particularly disputed.