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: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inductive Atheism
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 46 of 536 (604723)
02-14-2011 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by slevesque
02-11-2011 4:13 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
You are left without genuine 'scientific' evidence. This does not mean if 500 people saw me walk on water, it couldn't be considered evidence that a supernatural phenomenon occured. (of course, other options should be looked into first. Is it a trick ? is it an as-of-yet unknown natural phenomenon ?)
At what point to do you give up looking for a natural explanation for a phenomena and declare it the product of the supernatural?
More importantly, when has a supernatural explanation ever turned out to be the right answer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 02-11-2011 4:13 PM slevesque has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 47 of 536 (604737)
02-14-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by xongsmith
02-14-2011 2:16 PM


Sleep paralysis, temporal epilepsy and schizophrenia.
xongsmith writes:
Straggler writes:
People can testify to having experiences certainly. But what are these experiences evidence of exactly?
I think the main point is that all of these sorts of evidences are only coming into play when the desired objective scientific evidence is simply not available.
There's plenty of scientific research on supernatural experiences. Where shall we start? During sleep paralysis is as good a time as any for people to have their mystical magical experiences, but it's certainly not the only time.
Sensed presences
Sleep paralysis - Wikipedia
Prophets like Moses receive commands. This can sometimes lead them to violence, as when Moses orders his followers to stone a man to death for collecting firewood on the Sabbath; the special day of the Commander.
Command hallucinations in relation to violence in Asian schizophrenics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by xongsmith, posted 02-14-2011 2:16 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 02-14-2011 5:12 PM bluegenes has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 48 of 536 (604751)
02-14-2011 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by bluegenes
02-14-2011 3:56 PM


Re: Sleep paralysis, temporal epilepsy and schizophrenia.
There's plenty of scientific research on supernatural experiences.
And those are just the modern versions of supernatural experiences. In previous ages lightning was thought to be supernatural as well as thousands of other phenomenon that we now explain through natural mechanisms. As Steven Weinberg put it:
quote:
Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a creator. There are still countless things in nature that we cannot explain, but we think we know the principles that govern the way they work. Today for real mystery one has to look to cosmology and elementary particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete. (Weinberg, S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," Pantheon: New York NY, 1992, pp.249-250)
With this type of track record, why does any supernatural explanation hold weight?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by bluegenes, posted 02-14-2011 3:56 PM bluegenes has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 536 (604764)
02-14-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by xongsmith
02-14-2011 1:56 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
The forensic processes are repeatable. The fingerprints can be examined by others.
I know that. Slevesque seems to be saying that the event itself needs to be repeatable ... and by everyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by xongsmith, posted 02-14-2011 1:56 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 50 of 536 (604787)
02-14-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by slevesque
02-11-2011 4:13 PM


Walking the Wet Way
I mean repeatable in it's scientific definition. In that anyone, anywhere, could repeat it and have the same results.
While this would certainly be useful it does not describe, in total, repeatability.
If the subject is "Cold Fusion" then, yes, anyone anywhere should be able to produce the same result. If we're talking paleontology then we're more trying to repeat the proponent's congregation of the facts and seeing if the analysis applied is sufficient. This also is repeatability.
Stories of your walking on water is more the second type. If the scenario cannot be scrutinized for viability with no independent corroborating evidence, no supporting facts, you have no evidence.
But further, if you can walk on water in Paris then you should be able to walk on water in Phoenix where I can watch and film it. If you cannot or will not then, it matters not how many people think they saw the original feat, you have nothing. The eye-witness testimony, notoriously bad to begin with, is so weak as to be non-existent.
If there is one thing Fatima taught us it is that even a crowd of thousands can succumb to mass hysteria and vouch witness to an event that only one little girl says she saw.
I think we can agree that if it is up to someone's 'will' if something physically happens or not, then it is not repeatable in a scientific way.
No, I do not agree.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 02-11-2011 4:13 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jaywill, posted 02-15-2011 12:24 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 51 of 536 (604801)
02-15-2011 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by AZPaul3
02-14-2011 10:45 PM


Re: Walking the Wet Way
If there is one thing Fatima taught us it is that even a crowd of thousands can succumb to mass hysteria and vouch witness to an event that only one little girl says she saw.
Some of us believers have also learned that we should not be distracted from our prize of the enjoyment of Christ by superstituous and sensational visions.
The Apostle Paul warns us in Colossians:
"Let no one defraud you ... dwelling on things which he has seen, vainly puffed up by his mind set on the flesh." (Col. 2:18)
Visions for visions' sake are not to be quickly and undiscerningly attributed to God, like the Fatima fiasco.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 02-14-2011 10:45 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 52 of 536 (604810)
02-15-2011 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by xongsmith
02-14-2011 1:40 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Why does being fictional or a cartoon character preclude it from being a supernatural concept?
It's a frikkin ghost!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by xongsmith, posted 02-14-2011 1:40 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by xongsmith, posted 02-15-2011 2:59 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 53 of 536 (604812)
02-15-2011 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by xongsmith
02-14-2011 2:16 PM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
X writes:
I think the main point is that all of these sorts of evidences are only coming into play when the desired objective scientific evidence is simply not available.
And how does this justify the conclusion that these "subjective experiences" have supernatural rather than natural causes?
RAZ says that documented experiences of this type constitute "objective empirical evidence". But what is he saying they are "objective empirical evidence" of exactly? And can he supply us with some examples of these documented experiences so we know exactly what he is talking about?
RAZD writes:
Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings.
More RAZ debate bollocks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by xongsmith, posted 02-14-2011 2:16 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by xongsmith, posted 02-15-2011 2:41 PM Straggler has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 54 of 536 (604854)
02-15-2011 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Straggler
02-15-2011 3:07 AM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
Straggler writes:
RAZD writes:
Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings.
More RAZ debate bollocks?
Seems that way. I would disagree with RAZD on this. The abundance of these documents and reports does nothing to move them from subjective evidence into the category of objective evidence, in my opinion.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 3:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 4:03 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 55 of 536 (604858)
02-15-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Straggler
02-15-2011 2:59 AM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Straggler writes:
Why does being fictional or a cartoon character preclude it from being a supernatural concept?
It's a frikkin ghost!!!
I suppose it all comes down to semantics.
In my thinking, there is no way any person familiar with Casper The Ghost would ever believe there was anything actualized outside of the confines of the story line of the comic strip/cartoon that anyone would describe as truly "supernatural".
The concept of a ghost or ghosts believed to have been experienced in the world by a person or persons would tentatively fit my definition, until investigation showed it was only imagined after all. Then it would no longer fit my definition.
You are free to define a fictional character as such if you like, but I'd rather leave all those out of the issue at hand, to save time.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 2:59 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by bluegenes, posted 02-15-2011 4:06 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 4:08 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 02-15-2011 6:43 PM xongsmith has replied

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


Message 56 of 536 (604861)
02-15-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by xongsmith
02-15-2011 2:41 PM


Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
Could you tell RAZ this. He seems to be ignoring me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by xongsmith, posted 02-15-2011 2:41 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by xongsmith, posted 02-15-2011 7:25 PM Straggler has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 57 of 536 (604862)
02-15-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by xongsmith
02-15-2011 2:59 PM


Cartoon characters and Christ
xongsmith writes:
In my thinking, there is no way any person familiar with Casper The Ghost would ever believe there was anything actualized outside of the confines of the story line of the comic strip/cartoon that anyone would describe as truly "supernatural".
The concept of a ghost or ghosts believed to have been experienced in the world by a person or persons would tentatively fit my definition, until investigation showed it was only imagined after all. Then it would no longer fit my definition.
As people are discussing cartoon characters and "subjective experiences", I may as well point out that cartoon characters are often experienced in hallucinations, and this can be combined with the delusion, either temporary or lasting, that they actually exist.
I once listened to a recovered schizophrenic explaining why he had jumped out of a dangerously high window and broken his legs. It was assumed to be an impractical suicide attempt by his doctors, but actually his decision was rational in terms of the information he was getting. He was being chased by a cartoon monster which was trying to kill him, so he took the best option available to him.
A number of conditions can produce such "subjective experiences". Here, the author describes her hallucinations following viral encephalitis. Unfortunately, it's behind a pay wall, but I can quote:
quote:
I have categorized my hallucinations as follows:
(1) form constants, (2) intermediate images of form constants and body parts, (3) complex scenes,
eg visualization of myself, Christ figures, cartoon characters and symbolic scenes. ...
Cartoon characters and Christ
Christ, demons, angels, djinns, gods, fairies etc. are traditional "subjective experiences", but in modern times we can add cartoon characters and aliens from space which are experienced by people in cultures where a lot of cartoons are watched and where there's a lot of science fiction.
I expect that Harry Potter and Gandalf have been "experienced" as real by some people somewhere by now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by xongsmith, posted 02-15-2011 2:59 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 58 of 536 (604863)
02-15-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by xongsmith
02-15-2011 2:59 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
X writes:
You are free to define a fictional character as such if you like, but I'd rather leave all those out of the issue at hand, to save time.
So as far as you are concerned there can be no such thing as an intentionally fictional supernatural concept? Then I have no idea how you are defining "supernatural". Can you enlighten me?
Films about vampires that can turn into bats? Magical dragons in fantasy novels? Stories about ghosts? Etc. None of these things are tales of the "supernatural" as far as you are concerned?
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I await your definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by xongsmith, posted 02-15-2011 2:59 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by xongsmith, posted 02-15-2011 7:11 PM Straggler has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 59 of 536 (604887)
02-15-2011 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by xongsmith
02-15-2011 2:59 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
In my thinking, there is no way any person familiar with Casper The Ghost would ever believe there was anything actualized outside of the confines of the story line of the comic strip/cartoon that anyone would describe as truly "supernatural".
I feel the same way about Jesus.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by xongsmith, posted 02-15-2011 2:59 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by xongsmith, posted 02-15-2011 7:23 PM onifre has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 60 of 536 (604888)
02-15-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Straggler
02-15-2011 4:08 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Straggler writes:
X writes:
You are free to define a fictional character as such if you like, but I'd rather leave all those out of the issue at hand, to save time.
So as far as you are concerned there can be no such thing as an intentionally fictional supernatural concept? Then I have no idea how you are defining "supernatural". Can you enlighten me?
Films about vampires that can turn into bats? Magical dragons in fantasy novels? Stories about ghosts? Etc. None of these things are tales of the "supernatural" as far as you are concerned?
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I await your definition.
It's sort of the same thing that would make a school child, looking for the next prime number after some given large prime number P>>>>>2, disregard bothering to check any more even numbers.
A simplification: If something has been explained well enough scientifically, it cannot be unexplained. We can move on to the next thing.
You could thus propose:
The set of supernatural stuff (beings, things, events,...), whether it is an empty set or not, is contained inside the set of unexplained stuff.
bluegenes theory predicts that this set is empty as a result of inductive reasoning, correct?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 4:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2011 8:24 AM xongsmith 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