Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Well aside from my rather paltry efforts to show theists the error of their ways here at EvC I will leave de-programming to those better qualified than I.

So what is your background?Physics educated? Physics profesional even? Or an interested amateur?

I was once a physics teacher for my sins...... "A level" - I have just realised you are a fellow Brit. No wonder you seem so comparatively eloquent and annoyingly knowledgeable

Not if it is being proclaimed as the cause of natural phenomenon. As is the premise of this thread.Read the OP. Then get back to me.

Then you will be delighted to know that I have NOT defined things in this way. If you say god is inherently immune from material detection because he/it is neither derived from nor subject to physically natural laws then I will be happy to show you why you are almost certainly wrong. Then I call "bullshit". Like anyone who claims to be a man of many corners in the circle of life I dispute your pseudo-intellectualistic theistic drivel as blatant bollocks.

Well why do you think dark matter is even being postulated but for detectable physical effects? Why?Given that humanity has ceaselessly put forward supernatural explanations for what have turned out to be wholly naturally explicable phenomenon what would you call it?

As accurate as that broad description may be it is not unique to the question at hand. Could you be more specific? Why do those two words not belong in the same sentance?I don't see how you can agree that the supernatural hypothesis has failed on the basis that science has repeatedly overturned claims of the supernatural whilst simultaneously asserting that science can say nothing about supernatural claims.It doesn't add up.

And yet history is littered with the abandoned supernatural explanations that have been overturned by scientific understanding. So rather than the twain never meeting history in fact tells us that when the twain does meet there is only ever one outcome. Which is exactly what I said. But if Dark Matter turns out not to not be the answer the Dark Matter hypothesis will have failed will it not?. Given that the supernatural has been repeatedly and erroneously postulated as a means of explaining otherwise unexplained phenomenon at previous points in time without a single instance of success it seems fair to say that the supernatural hypothesis has failed - No? Indeed. And it would be fair to say that the luminous ether hypothesis had failed as well would it not? Yes. Very much like the supernatural hypothesis for any number of observed phenomenon. Whether you want to call it "the supernatural hypothesis" or the claim that "somethingsupernaturaldidit" is irrelevant. The fact is that humanity has a long history of erroneously citing supernatural answers to seemingly inexplicable observed phenomenon. Anyone still suggesting that there is an unevidenced supernatural cause for any observed phenomenon is doing so as a result of self-indulgent or indoctrinated conviction. Not reason.And the whole "never the twain shall meet" thing is little more than a method of appeasing apologists who are being forced to deal with the fact that supernatural beliefs have been forced to retreat into ever increasing ambiguity and ever diminishing gaps.

"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon" Wiki on hypothesisAnd yet history is littered with the abandoned supernatural explanations that have been overturned by scientific understanding. So rather than the twain never meeting history in fact tells us that when the twain does meet there is only ever one outcome.Your whole "never the twain shall meet" thing is nothing more than an apologists way of dealing with the fact that supernatural beliefs have been forced to retreat into ever increasing ambiguity and ever diminishing gaps.

If you are gonna drag things down to the dumbass level I'll play along. Counter EXAMPLE of your nonsensical thinking.I am a modern Londoner who hypothesizes:
People who dive under buses tend to not live very long.
God must not want us to interract with buses because buses are sinful.
No one is dying from bus interraction now!!My bus interraction supernatural hypothesis is chock full of win juice, God must be happy! So there is a causal relationship between disobeying gods wishes (i.e pork eating) and bad things happening.So getting ill after eating pork is evidence of a God's existence?How about all those of us who eat pork without getting ill?

Do you think gods or supernatural beings of any sort have had any effect at all on the material world or the human mind? From universe creation to inspiring belief? Getting ill after eating pork has nothing more to do with God's will than dying after throwing oneself under a bus. So we can safely throw both those on the supernatural hypothesis scrapheap. Whilst also giving "an example of a religious man hypothesizing" regarding supernatural causes of illness. Oh dear. And I told you that a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. Are you seriously suggesting that humanity has not invoked the supernatural to explain observed phenomenon? Well that is the thread topic. Duh!! So you keep asserting. However history strongly says otherwise. No. But supernatural claims do purport to explain observed phenomenon in the material world. Have you read the OP at all? Any observed phenomenon can be studied scientifically. The "pseudo" and "para" parts come when people start proclaiming that they know the cause of the observed phenomenon is itself scientifically "unknowable". AKA "supernatural". I would say the same to you. But I wouldn't mean it.

Why is it "moot"? So how exactly is that different to saying that the supernatural hypthesis has failed?

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.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.Which part of this are you actually disagreeing with? Because by your thinking it is "heuristic" to suggest that natural selection and random mutation are the cause of diversity of life on Earth because the invisible hand of Jesus Christ could be personally manipulating every bacterial experiment we undertake to lead us to this false conclusion.Because by your thinking it is "heuristic" to suggest that electrical resistance as the source of light and heat in filament bulbs because we cannot prove that ethereal undetectable salamanders are not emulating those effects in some filament bulbs.Because by your thinking it is a "heuristic" conclusion that space-time curvature is the cause of gravitational effects because we cannot disprove the unfalsifiable possibility that immaterial gravity gnomes are sneakily tricking us into thinking this.Because by your thinking it is "heuristic" to advocate ANY scientific explanation (no matter what predictions or deeper understanding it facilitates and is able to demonstrate) because there are ALWAYS unfalsifiable unevidenced supernatural alternative possibilities available to EVERY scientific explanation.Now before you start bandying around phrases like "mockery" or "extrapolating to the absurd" you are going to need to explain to me both how we can have confidence in any scientific explanation for anything and what the evidential difference is between whatever supernatural possibilities you are positing as non-absurd and those which I have cited above which you seem to find so offensive. Do you agree that science is equivalent to methodological naturalism?I am holding a pen above my desk. I am going to let go of it.

What do you think my pen will do?

How confident can we be of this conclusion?

Is this conclusion "heuristic"?

​

Bluejay writes:

​

Rather, it’s pretty much the most basic heuristic on which all of scientific reasoning is based: i.e., that the natural world can be comprehended and explained by deterministic rules.

​

In which case all of science is "heuristic" and one wonders why we bother to find scientific explanations for anything given how little confidence we can have in such explanations?

​

Maybe "heuristic" doesn't quite convey the true extent to which the supernatural explanations relentlessly proposed by humanity as a result of wishful thinking and ignorance have been overturned by naturalistic explanations? Naturalistic explanations which lead to prediction, discovery and ultimately technology. Naturalistic explanations which have demonstrated themselves as reliable.

​

Maybe "refuted to all practical intents and purposes" might be a better way to describe these unevidenced supernatural possibilities?

​

Bluejay writes:

​

This really doesn’t make as much sense as you think it does.

​

Bluejay is there ANY scientific explanation in which you think we can have any confidence at all? Can you name one in which you think we CAN have confidence? Or not?

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

To describe mankinds realisation that the world is explicable, predictable and even able to be utilised in terms of natural laws as "heuristic" is a bit like describing the concept of the wheel as "something that might prove useful one day". It is the entire point. Are we even participating in the same conversation here? Yes of course we absolutely are. We are talking about human conceptions of the supernatural and whether or not these are derived from human imagination or caused by the actual existence of the supernatural. ALL naturalistic theories can be falsified by both naturalistic and supernatural alternatives. As I have explained previously. I can't figure out why you are incapable of seeing that an evidenced naturalistic explanation for an observed phenomenon refutes to all practical intents and purposes any suggestion of unevidenced supernatural involvement in that phenomenon. So by the terms of your argument we have no basis whatsoever on which to rule out supernatural involvement in gravitational effects, evolution or anything else that has a naturalistic explanation and resulting conclusions already in place. Right? By the terms of your argument any declaration of confidence or (un)likelihood regarding supernatural involvement in such phenomenon is entirely impossible and wholly unjustifiable. Correct? But where does our ability to predict come into your estimations of confidence in a theory?Consider the following: I am holding a pen above my desk. I am going to let go of it.

What do you think my pen will do?

How confident can we be of this conclusion?

​

Now by the terms of your argument the conclusion that my pen will simply drop in a uniform manner as per the naturalistic law of gravity is based on "heuristic" thinking and thus unworthy of any confidence at all.

​

By the terms of your argument we cannot rule out, even as unlikely, the possibility that under the influence of some supernatural entity the pen will zig zag around or do a loop the loop before shooting out of the window towards Mars - Can we? By the terms of your argument any confidence in the predictions borne of naturalistic "assumptions" are unjustifiable because our naturalistic theories can say nothing about the likelihood or possibility of supernatural involvement taking place at any point in this process.

​

But I dropped my pen and it did exactly what our naturalistic laws said it would.

​

Go figure.

​

Bluejay writes:

​

Heuristics are rules of reasoning that are followed when practicality is more important than accuracy. We rule out supernatural, not because we can actually reasonably comment on it and have shown it to be false, but because we can’t actually reasonably comment on it.

​

Then explain to me how exactly it is we can have such utter confidence that when dropped a pen will simply fall rather than do any of the things that a supernatural agent might choose to cause it to do?

​

Explain to me how we can confidently predict anything that relies on naturalistic explanations being an accurate reflection of reality if these explanations are based on a mere "heuristic" and the possibility of supernatural intervention cannot be discounted as unlikely?

​

Bluejay writes:

​

Naturalism has not shown itself to be more accurate than supernaturalism: it has only shown itself to be more useful in organizing information than supernaturalism.

​

This is just wrong. The measure of the accuracy of our explanations as compared to reality is indicated by their ability to predict. The whole essence of science is based on the requirement that we test the accuracy of our explanations by comparing them with reality in this manner. Your argument completely omits this absolutely fundamental requirement. As a result you come to some entirely bogus conclusions.

​

Try jumping out of the window and then let me know how "heuristic" our entirely naturalistic conclusions regarding gravity really are.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This thread has been a minor revelation to me. The differences of position between those commonly on the science side of the debate have been quite unexpected. I guess I had assumed that we all share roughly the same idea of what science is, that we all broadly agree the criteria upon which we can consider an explanation as being accurate in comparison with reality and that we all have some common notion of what it is we mean by reality and where the limits of our knowledge of this can approximately be said to be. I was wrong.Firstly some (primarily yourself — but others too) made it clear that they consider our experience of reality to define what reality is. And that as a consequence any notion of existence outside of natural law is by definition unreal, imagined meaningless nonsense. Thus making the very concept of the supernatural entirely moot and able to be accurately described as nothing simply by definition.Then at the other end of the spectrum I encountered Bluejay’s rather bizarre thinking on this issue. He views scientific naturalistic explanations for observed phenomenon as nothing more than efficient methods of organising data. Heuristic assumptions that are no more accurate in terms of describing or representing reality than entirely unevidenced supernatural alternative explanations about which he asserts we can say absolutely nothing at all because statistical analysis is unable to comment on such possibilities. He essentially demotes science from the role of intrepid investigator to meaningless filing clerk and in doing so relegates any confidence we might have in any scientific explanation to that of being nothing more than a rather baseless working assumption.Now the first of these approaches I have much sympathy with. Certainly the practical consequences of this approach are hair splittingly similar with my own conclusions regarding the viability of unevidenced unfalsifiable supernatural explanations for observed phenomenon as compared to evidenced naturalistic explanations. I.e. desperately unlikely. However I still take issue with the idea that we can simply define the supernatural out of existence on the basis of necessarily limited perceptual experience. But this is all relatively academic.The second of these approaches however (i.e. Bluejay’s thinking) I find shockingly inadequate. By the terms of Bluejay’s argument we can never ever confidently predict anything. By the terms of his argument we are unable to confidently make reliable predictions based on the (supposedly) heuristic assumption of consistent natural laws and the (apparently) statistically invalid presupposition that no supernatural agents will override these natural laws. How he reconciles this argument with the deeply evidenced fact that we can and do continually make immensely reliable and incredibly accurate predictions based exclusively on natural laws remains a complete mystery.Every single time we confidently expect anything to act in accordance with natural laws we necessarily treat any supernatural alternative possibilities as unlikely to the point of completely irrelevant. Every single time we drop a pen, jump out of a window, drive a car, fly a plane, breed a dog, light a match, launch a rocket, sequence a genome, operate a particle accelerator or whatever else (from the everyday and mundane to the cutting edge) we implicitly assume that supernatural agents will not be (and have not been) overriding, manipulating or suspending the laws on which the expected behaviour of the world as we observe it operates. These are facts. And Bluejay’s analysis is in direct violation of these facts. Thus it is refuted.Bluejay’s entire argument amounts to nothing more than an over elaborate version of the two main assertions that all theistic arguments ultimately boil down to. The assertions made ad-nauseum by theists of all stripes. Namely supernaturalistic interpretations are just as valid as natutralistic ones and you cannot disprove the existence of the supernatural. The standard theistic position jazzed up with some technical sounding terminology pertaining to statistics and heuristics.