Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 549 (572394)
08-05-2010 2:38 PM


Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
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):
  • The creation of the universe.
  • Abiogenesis
  • Human belief in the existence of the supernatural
  • Religious experiences
  • Man's sense of morality
    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

  • Replies to this message:
     Message 3 by Larni, posted 08-06-2010 4:52 AM Straggler has not replied
     Message 4 by purpledawn, posted 08-06-2010 6:33 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 10 by caffeine, posted 08-06-2010 10:47 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 14 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2010 1:30 PM Straggler has replied
     Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 08-06-2010 8:59 PM Straggler has replied
     Message 41 by Blue Jay, posted 08-07-2010 12:41 PM Straggler has replied
     Message 128 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:18 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 193 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-27-2010 6:43 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 293 by Jon, posted 09-24-2010 1:18 PM Straggler has replied

    Admin
    Director
    Posts: 12998
    From: EvC Forum
    Joined: 06-14-2002
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 2 of 549 (572441)
    08-05-2010 8:45 PM


    Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
    Thread copied here from the Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

    Larni
    Member (Idle past 164 days)
    Posts: 4000
    From: Liverpool
    Joined: 09-16-2005


    Message 3 of 549 (572470)
    08-06-2010 4:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
    08-05-2010 2:38 PM


    Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
    '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].

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2010 2:38 PM Straggler has not replied

    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3457 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 4 of 549 (572486)
    08-06-2010 6:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
    08-05-2010 2:38 PM


    Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
    So what is the supernatural hypothesis?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2010 2:38 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 8:23 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 5 of 549 (572503)
    08-06-2010 8:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 4 by purpledawn
    08-06-2010 6:33 AM


    Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
    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):
  • The creation of the universe.
  • Abiogenesis
  • Widespread human belief in the existence of the supernatural
  • Religious experiences
  • Man's sense of morality
    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?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by purpledawn, posted 08-06-2010 6:33 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by Huntard, posted 08-06-2010 8:28 AM Straggler has replied

    Huntard
    Member (Idle past 2295 days)
    Posts: 2870
    From: Limburg, The Netherlands
    Joined: 09-02-2008


    Message 6 of 549 (572504)
    08-06-2010 8:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by Straggler
    08-06-2010 8:23 AM


    Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
    Straggler writes:
    Is somethingsupernaturaldidit a viable answer or explanation to anything?
    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".

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 8:23 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 8:38 AM Huntard has not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 7 of 549 (572507)
    08-06-2010 8:38 AM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Huntard
    08-06-2010 8:28 AM


    Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Huntard, posted 08-06-2010 8:28 AM Huntard has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-06-2010 9:33 AM Straggler has replied

    Jumped Up Chimpanzee
    Member (Idle past 4942 days)
    Posts: 572
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-22-2009


    (1)
    Message 8 of 549 (572516)
    08-06-2010 9:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by Straggler
    08-06-2010 8:38 AM


    Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
    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"?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 8:38 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by nwr, posted 08-06-2010 10:12 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
     Message 11 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 12:27 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 9 of 549 (572524)
    08-06-2010 10:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
    08-06-2010 9:33 AM


    Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
    Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
    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"?
    Yes, that's precisely what happens.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-06-2010 9:33 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

    caffeine
    Member (Idle past 1024 days)
    Posts: 1800
    From: Prague, Czech Republic
    Joined: 10-22-2008


    Message 10 of 549 (572528)
    08-06-2010 10:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
    08-05-2010 2:38 PM


    So what does supernatural mean?
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2010 2:38 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 12:30 PM caffeine has not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 11 of 549 (572545)
    08-06-2010 12:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
    08-06-2010 9:33 AM


    Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-06-2010 9:33 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-06-2010 12:46 PM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 12 of 549 (572547)
    08-06-2010 12:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by caffeine
    08-06-2010 10:47 AM


    Re: So what does supernatural mean?
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by caffeine, posted 08-06-2010 10:47 AM caffeine has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 229 by 1.61803, posted 09-02-2010 2:53 PM Straggler has replied

    Jumped Up Chimpanzee
    Member (Idle past 4942 days)
    Posts: 572
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-22-2009


    Message 13 of 549 (572549)
    08-06-2010 12:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by Straggler
    08-06-2010 12:27 PM


    Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
    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!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 12:27 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 2:27 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    (2)
    Message 14 of 549 (572551)
    08-06-2010 1:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
    08-05-2010 2:38 PM


    The success of the supernatural hypothesis
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2010 2:38 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Coyote, posted 08-06-2010 1:33 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
     Message 17 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 2:40 PM Modulous has replied

    Coyote
    Member (Idle past 2106 days)
    Posts: 6117
    Joined: 01-12-2008


    Message 15 of 549 (572552)
    08-06-2010 1:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Modulous
    08-06-2010 1:30 PM


    Re: The success of the supernatural hypothesis
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2010 1:30 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024