Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


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 194 of 549 (577096)
08-27-2010 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by shalamabobbi
08-27-2010 6:43 AM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Religion has failed to explain anything in science..
Has belief in the supernatural succeeded in explaining anything?
then extrapolating it to ALL religious experience.
Human belief in or expereience of the supernatural is no more indicative or requiring of the actual existence of the supernatural than the existence of different species on Earth is indicative or requiring of a supernatural intelligent designer.
In both cases we have an evidenced naturalistic explanation (human imagination and evolution respectively) for an observed phenomenon in place and can be confident of it’s validity.
Anyone suggesting that a genuinely supernatural cause is the reason why humans have supernatural beliefs/experiences is being just as irrational as someone who claims that the appearance of design in nature requires a supernatural designer.
Anyone suggesting that there is an unevidenced supernatural cause for anything for which we have an evidenced naturalistic explanation is doing so as a result of self-indulgent or indoctrinated conviction.
Not reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-27-2010 6:43 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-27-2010 11:10 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 197 of 549 (577169)
08-27-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by onifre
08-27-2010 10:01 AM


Re: False Premise Or Assuming Impossible?
Oni writes:
But that is not what I said, I have declaired nothing impossible.
I thought you said that the existence of things which are neither derived from nor subject to laws of nature was NOT a possibility? How is that different from calling them impossible? Consider the following example:
The Christian conception of Christ is as a genuinely divine and miraculous being. Born of a virgin not by some quirk of biology not yet discovered but simply by the will of biblical Yahweh. This Christ being is neither derived from nor subject to any laws of nature and can perform acts which are inherently inexplicable in any material terms (i.e. miracles).
Do you accept that the actual existence of this Christ entity as described above is a possibility?
In the bewilderingly unlikely event that this entity does actually exist would it not be both accurate and meaningful to describe it as supernatural?
Oni writes:
But I challenge that very logic, the one that can, somehow, assume realms beyond the only experienced reality in which we find ourselves. Because it seems illogical to to do so.
I am certainly not assuming such things do exist (I don’t personally think that they do). But unless I know for certain that they are impossible they remain a possibility. Right?
Oni writes:
I maintain that the word supernatural basically describes nothing, it is meaningless untill someone gives it a meaning or a function - such as the cause of an eclipse or volcanic eruption.
The term supernatural is an adjective that is no more conceptually meaningless than words like useful or impossible. The fact such terms can be applied both erroneously and subjectively does not detract from the fact that they have conceptual meaning in and of themselves.
I have told you what I mean by the term and you can look it up in any standard English dictionary and find it defined with meaning that is consistent with the one I have given in this thread. If the term has common conceptual meaning how can it be meaningless?
Oni writes:
If you like, I could provide quotes from them saying this very thing.
I am more interested in what you think. But feel free to do whatever you think best achieves that end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by onifre, posted 08-27-2010 10:01 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by purpledawn, posted 08-27-2010 12:33 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 199 by onifre, posted 08-27-2010 2:06 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 203 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-28-2010 7:29 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 201 of 549 (577337)
08-28-2010 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by purpledawn
08-27-2010 12:33 PM


Re: Human Imagination
PD writes:
Straggler writes:
Do you accept that the actual existence of this Christ entity as described above is a possibility?
Not outside of the human imagination and the medium used to communicate those thoughts.
How can you know this with such absolute certainty?
PD writes:
The concept exists in the human mind. It doesn't describe something that was seen in the real world. It describes something that was seen in the human imagination.
I entirely agree with the sentiment of this and certainly believe it to be true. What I dispute is your degree of certainty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by purpledawn, posted 08-27-2010 12:33 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by purpledawn, posted 08-28-2010 11:13 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 202 of 549 (577338)
08-28-2010 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by onifre
08-27-2010 2:06 PM


Re: False Premise Or Assuming Impossible?
Oni writes:
Straggler writes:
Do you accept that the actual existence of this Christ entity as described above is a possibility?
In reality? No. Reality has parameters that must be met. To exist in reality means, to be derived from and subject to natural law.
So you have applied an absolute and incontrovertible definition to "reality" and in doing so pronounced the actual existence of the Christian conception of Christ to be an impossibility. After having previously stated that "I have declaired nothing impossible".
Can you see why this might seem contradictory?
Oni writes:
I believe I said, to think that something can both exist and not be subject to or derived form natural law was illogical. The premise itself is contradictory by the very definition of what it means to exist.
So now you have applied an absolute definition of what it means "to exist" as well. And on this basis concluded that all human conceptions of the supernatural are illogical and meaningless. Given that the nature of what it means "to exist" (ontology) is a whole branch of philosophy that has far from conclusive answers do you think you can justify such incontrvertible certainty in the definition you have applied?
What if your definitions of "exist" and "reality" are inadequate? Do you accept that this is a possibility?
Oni writes:
They suggest, as I am doing here, that words like supernatural and god are lingustic place fillers until science catches up. As is witnessed with past phenomena like eclipses and volcanic eruptions.
I absolutely believe that this is almost certainly the case. What I dispute is the absolute certainty with which you confidently declare that all things must adhere to your rather simplistic definitions and that all things must therefore be materially explicable. Because you have defined them to be so.
Oni writes:
To say that it is possible for these phenomena to be inherently unknowable by natural means, and are not derived from or subject to natural law, is to equally say that it is impossible for science to ever know, understand, or be able to explain it.
Indeed. That is essentially what supernatural means.
Oni writes:
Something I'm sure you would not agree with.
To assume that all things are inherently materially explicable is an immensely well founded assumption that I would fight tooth and claw to promote both as scientifically necessary and almost certainly true. But no matter how well founded it may be it remains an assumption. NOT a certainty.
Applying absolute and incontrovertible definitions to things as contentious and complex as "reality" and "existence" and then pronouncing that anything which defies your definitions is illogical, meaningless and nothing is not justifiable.
I remain in disagreement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by onifre, posted 08-27-2010 2:06 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by onifre, posted 08-30-2010 1:08 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 205 of 549 (577575)
08-29-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-28-2010 7:29 AM


Re: False Premise Or Assuming Impossible?
JUC writes:
If Yahweh (whatever that is) ...
However wrongheaded it may be Yahweh is a pretty well defined concept. Let's not our let our disbelief in this concept get conflated with accusations of ambiguity.
JUC writes:
.....could deliberately make things happen by "will", surely there must be some mechanism or process between the act of "will" and the desired consequence.
If there is and it is a mechanism or process that can be investigated and understood in natural terms (i.e. scientifically) then it would't be supernatural.
But that is not what Christians believe. And we cannot just redefine their concepts to fit our scientific version of reality just because it is convenient to do so.
They may be wrong. I certainly think they are. But being wrong and being "meaningless" are not the same thing.
JUC writes:
E.G. If Yahweh wills the birth of Jesus from a virgin, there must then be some mechanism or process that occurs to ensure the desired conception and birth of Jesus - and not some undesired consquence such as a tree falling over!
If he is genuinely supernatural and unbounded by natural laws as Christians believe then why must this be so?
Being wrong and being "meaningless" are not the same thing.
JUC writes:
Even if such process is unknown to us, if it affects objects within the natural world, why is it not a natural process?
Because it is defined to be inherently materially inexplicable and not bounded by natural laws. That is what supernatural means.
I don't believe that such beings or events actually exist any more than you do. But that doesn't make the term "meaningless" as is the assertion being made here.
JUC writes:
Or to put it another way, how do you differentiate between "some quirk of biology not yet discovered", "the will of Yahweh", or "a miracle"?
Well if you discovered the "quirk of biology" scientifically that would conclusively resolve the issue in favour of a naturalistic conclusion. But short of that - You cannot in practise differentiate. I will agree wholeheartedly that science must necessarily assume (and an exceptionally well founded assumption it is too) that everything is materially explicable. Otherwise we might as well just not bother scientifically investigating anything that seems to defy explanation at first glance. And that will get us absolutely nowhere.
But none of this makes the term supernatural "meaningles" or "nothing" as is the assertion being made here. The term supernatural has common conceptual meaning and it remains a philosophical possibility (no matter how remote) that things which are inherently inexplicable in material terms might exist.
Now I will wholeheratedly agree that any belief that that something supernatural exists is almost certainly wrongheaded nonsense. I will wholeheratedly agree that the entire notion of the supernatural is all but certainly a product of the human imagination. But being almost certainly wrong and being "meaningless" or "nothing" are not the same thing.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-28-2010 7:29 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

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


Message 206 of 549 (577580)
08-29-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by purpledawn
08-28-2010 11:13 AM


Re: Human Imagination
Can any amount of evidence favouring a concept as the product of human imagination ever demonstrate that something is impossible?
PD writes:
Straggler writes:
How can you know this with such absolute certainty?
Because the human imagination can imagine impossible things.
OK. No argument there. But how does that in itself prove that any particular thing is solely the product of human imagination?
PD writes:
Straggler writes:
What I dispute is your degree of certainty.
I've witnessed man's imagination at work.
Well I think we can safely say that we all have. But how does that in itself prove that any particular claim is solely the product of human imagination?
PD writes:
In reality he's bound by the imagination of man.
I wholeheartedly agree that this is almost certainly the case.
What I dispute is your absolute knowledge that this is definitely and incontrovertibly the case with regard to this or any other particular instance.
How can you have such absolute knowledge that this is impossible?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by purpledawn, posted 08-28-2010 11:13 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by purpledawn, posted 08-29-2010 8:24 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 209 of 549 (577946)
08-31-2010 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by purpledawn
08-29-2010 8:24 PM


Re: Human Imagination
PD writes:
What real action today has caused science to search for the type of being you described in Message 197?
Absolutely nothing aside from human belief (which is no sort of evidence for anything)
But that doesn't make it an impossibility. Which is what you have claimed. Even Dawkins and the like only go so far as to say such things are "deeply improbable". And that is where I stand too. For good philosophical reasons declarations of absolute certainty are unjustified.
The point being - That if the term "supernatural" has common conceptual meaning and refers to something that (no matter how improbable) might exist it cannot be accurately described as "meaningless" or "nothing".
It can be accurately described as almost certainly wrong. But not "nothing".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by purpledawn, posted 08-29-2010 8:24 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by purpledawn, posted 08-31-2010 8:49 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 210 of 549 (577950)
08-31-2010 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by onifre
08-30-2010 1:08 PM


"Nothing"
Oni writes:
It's not my definition, it is the only definiton we have.
If we define existence and reality to be that which is empirically detectable and subject to natural laws then it becomes trivial (to the point of tautological) to conclude that all religious conceptions of the supernatural are non-existent and unreal.
If things were this easy there would be nothing to debate. We could simply tell theists (and deists) No. The object of your beliefs as conceived by you or your religion cannot actually exist. Thus you are refuted. Job done.
Oni writes:
And, it is not absoute, it is held tentatively until evidence is shown otherwise.
Yes. Which means that we cannot just define reality and existence in this way. What we can do, based on the entirety of human history, is say that there are exceptionally strong grounds for thinking existence and reality are limited in the ways you have stated. We can also legitimately conclude on the evidence available that assertions regarding the actual existence of the supernatural are borne of human imagination, ignorance and the desire for "something more".
But these are evidence based conclusions. Not definitions. Thus they remain tentative rather than definitive. And if our notions of reality and existence are not absolute and definitive the existence of the supernatural (no matter how improbable) remains a possibility.
In which case "supernatural" has both common conceptual meaning and refers to things which might (no matter how improbable) exist.
Thus the term "supernatural" is not "meaningless" or "nothing".
Wrong? Almost certainly. But that isn't "nothing". "Wrong" is a position that has to be argued and demonstrated. To declare a concept as "nothing" is a position simply derived from definitions.
Oni writes:
What I am calling meaningless and "nothing" is the past applications of the word supernatural, as the cause of an eclipse or an eruption. In those cases, it has ended up refering to nothing at all, and was meaningless because a natural cause eventually explained each of these.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
But being wrong as a result of evidence and argument is not the same as being "nothing" because we have defined reality and existence to make it so.
Oni writes:
To say that Christ now fits this ambiguous definition of supernatural, and that it has meaning in that sense, is to ignore the history of that word and to fall into the gaps argument.
To cite Christ as an example of a concept that can accurately and meaningfully be called "supernatural" should hardly be controversial. And I chose the the concept of Christ exactly because, for all it's faults, it isn't ambiguous.
But being wrong as a result of evidence and argument is not the same as being "nothing" or "meaningless" because we have defined reality and existence to make it so.
I'll leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by onifre, posted 08-30-2010 1:08 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by onifre, posted 08-31-2010 10:41 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 212 of 549 (577968)
08-31-2010 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by purpledawn
08-31-2010 8:49 AM


Re: Human Imagination
I agree.
Tentatively.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by purpledawn, posted 08-31-2010 8:49 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 214 of 549 (577993)
08-31-2010 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by onifre
08-31-2010 10:41 AM


Re: "Nothing" - Last Wordism
Oni writes:
Exception was made for you because I know it won't go on for every and we'll just give up. Looks like we've sorta reached that point.
Yep.
But you had to ask that one last question.......
Oni writes:
Not to drag this on, and I know you mention I could get the last word but, do you not see the difference between logically possible, within the limits of nature & anything goes as long as you can imagine it?
Of course I can see the difference. But you are assuming that we can definitively state what the limits of reality are. That is the philosophical problem I have with the "nothing/meaningless" by definition argument.
Aside from that we agree in all but the most pedantic and academic terms. But quibbling relentlessly over such things is I guess what we (or at least I) do here at EvC.
Oni writes:
The latter to me seems fun to entertain but void of any real philosophical meaning.
Well it has philosophical meaning. Just none that matters much in any practical sense.
I really will let you have the last word now.
Honestly
(**Straggler zips his lips together**)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by onifre, posted 08-31-2010 10:41 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by onifre, posted 08-31-2010 4:48 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 215 of 549 (577996)
08-31-2010 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by shalamabobbi
08-27-2010 11:10 AM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
SB writes:
Straggler writes:
Has belief in the supernatural succeeded in explaining anything?
Of course not..
Then it seems that you agree that the supernatural hypothesis has indeed failed.
SB writes:
Straggler writes:
Human belief in or experience of the supernatural
Belief and experience are two separate concepts.
Neither of which are indicative or requiring of the actual existence of the supernatural.
SB writes:
Religion is testimony based, so by definition it is discounted by science. That's where the problem lies.
Problem for who?
SB writes:
You made a statement(maybe on another thread) that you would have to reconsider your stance on atheism if you experienced the 2nd coming.
I was a bit more specific than that. And I certainly didn't mean that if I was sitting all alone on my loo and Jesus spoke to me that I would necessarily have a Damascus moment.
SB writes:
In all the above the experience is the same. But in one (or more) you accept the experience and in the rest you reject it.
No. I think you'll find that the difference is between objective evidence and subjective experience.
SB writes:
Reasonable and rational enough, but it really has no finality of proof that you are looking for.
I am not looking for "proof" of anything. That isn't what evidence leads to.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-27-2010 11:10 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by shalamabobbi, posted 09-01-2010 2:30 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 216 of 549 (577999)
08-31-2010 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by crashfrog
08-27-2010 6:21 PM


Re: False Premise Or Assuming Impossible?
Oh, I get it. Like humour.
Only different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2010 6:21 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


(1)
Message 218 of 549 (578102)
08-31-2010 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by onifre
08-31-2010 4:48 PM


Mmmmm Mmmmmmm Mmmmmmm
(***Straggler, utterly unable to control himself, opens his mouth to as if to protest before throwing one hand over his mouth***)
"Mmmmmmm Mmmmmmm Mmmmmmmm" Come the muffled attempts to keep arguing.
(***Straggler uses his other hand to grab himself by the collar and drag himself backwards away from the conversation***)
"Mmmmmmmmm Mmmmmmm Mmmmmmmm". The muffled protestations fade into the distance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by onifre, posted 08-31-2010 4:48 PM onifre has not replied

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


Message 220 of 549 (578238)
09-01-2010 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by shalamabobbi
09-01-2010 2:30 AM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
SB writes:
But as I understand it the concepts of this thread lie outside of the scope of science. If that is the case how can a question that is not in the domain of science be answered by a scientific theory?
The supernatural hypothesis as discussed in the OP is essentially the claim that something inherently materially inexplicable (e.g. but not limited to - God) is responsible for some aspect of nature. Whether it be the rising of the Sun, the formation of life, the creation of the universe, the cause of human theistic beliefs or whatever else a supernatural cause is claimed for. Whether such claims are correct or not is very much within the scope of science. In fact overturning such claims has constituted much of the history of science.
Given the fact that humanity has a long history of wrongly claiming supernatural answers to seemingly puzzling natural phenomenon is it now ever rationally justifiable to cite the supernatural as the answer to anything? That is essentially the question posed in the OP — Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
SB writes:
The idea of religion being based upon testimony is my understanding of it. That is the only evidence that I am aware of that has been claimed for religion. But it does not constitute anything acceptable to science.
That human beings believe in the supernatural and have religious experiences is a fact. But like any other observed phenomenon this human behaviour can be studied scientifically.
SB writes:
My point of the basketball analogy was similar in idea to petroglyph's posts I guess, in that by noting that beliefs/religion does not explain anything in the natural world you are setting up a strawman.
What causes human belief in the supernatural? Is human belief in the supernatural requiring or indicative of the actual existence of the supernatural? Theists/supernaturalists certainly seem to be claiming so.
SB writes:
The fact that these claims are made does not constitute some sort of proof but how would your theory be able to disprove such claims? (other than simply stating that they are unlikely).
You still miss the point.
The point is that human belief in the supernatural is no more indicative or requiring of the actual existence of the supernatural than the existence of different species suited to their environment is indicative or requiring of a supernatural intelligent designer. In both cases we have an evidenced naturalistic explanation for an observed phenomenon in place. In both cases we can be confident of the validity of these evidenced naturalistic explanations without recourse to disproving unfalsifiable supernatural alternatives.
The point is that anyone suggesting that a genuinely supernatural cause is the reason why humans have supernatural beliefs is being just as irrational as someone who claims that the appearance of design in nature requires a supernatural designer.
The point is that anyone suggesting that there is an unevidenced supernatural cause for human belief in the supernatural is doing so as a result of self-indulgent or indoctrinated conviction.
Not reason.
SB writes:
So that we are not talking past each other I responded to the OP looking for the logical fallacy in the argument which you indicated must exist in your debate with Oni.
Myself and Oni are engaged in little more than picking the nits out of each others fur. He (quite rightly) points out that the term supernatural refers to things which defy absolutely everything we know about reality. On this basis he argues that he is justified in describing the term as meaningless. I on the other hand am making a distinction between things that I would call genuinely meaningless (upside down water, square circles etc.) and things (e.g. supernatural concepts) which are just plain wrong in evidential terms.
As much as anything it is about a difference of approach. Oni has concluded that debates about the supernatural are rather pointless. I on the other hand would be utterly lost in life but for the occasional opportunity to wheel out the Immaterial Pink Unicorn. Thus I am forced to either disagree with his analysis on some level or face a life of unicornless nihilism which I find too terrifying to contemplate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by shalamabobbi, posted 09-01-2010 2:30 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by shalamabobbi, posted 09-01-2010 12:12 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 222 of 549 (578343)
09-01-2010 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by shalamabobbi
09-01-2010 12:12 PM


Re: Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
SB writes:
In other words the thread would present an abbreviated collection of all known scientific facts that might bare upon various religious beliefs and their viability.
Blimey!! That would quite wide ranging. In fact arguably as wide ranging as the entirety of EvC!!!! Maybe even more so.
SB writes:
If Modulus's idea is correct that belief is a need, then it is unhealthy not to by definition, which would be a dilemma of monumental proportion especially down the road when there is nothing new left to discover.
Nothing left to discover!!?? Well I suppose that when we reach that omniscient state we can kick back and just watch sports for the rest of time. But until that happy day....
SB writes:
I guess whether or not EvC forum is nothing more than a 12 step for theists remains to be seen..
I am sure participation at EvC has occasionally has a profound effect on those who are more open minded to begin with.
But for most I suspect it is primarily entertainment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by shalamabobbi, posted 09-01-2010 12:12 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Bikerman, posted 09-01-2010 3:57 PM Straggler 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