Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 137 of 549 (574397)
08-15-2010 5:10 PM


Full on double rainbow all the way across the sky .. so intense (tense)
Hey stragg - hope things are well w/ you and yours ..
And just a heads up in case I poop out on ya - I don't have much passion for this topic, as I don't generally perceive 'supernatural' phenomena as anything other than natural phenomena lacking a veritable scientific framework or as phenomena which lays outside of the spectrum of scientific criteria ..
However, I had a bit o' time, and so, I thought we might mix it up ..
stragg writes:
weary writes:
stragg writes:
In Message 265 of the Peanut Gallery thread in the Coffee House forum, oni writes:
Lets be honest and admit "supernatural" means nothing at all.
... how are we able to distinguish between explanations for as yet unknowns (e.g. the origins of the universe) that are natural and those that are supernatural?
I am curious has to why - or better yet, how, one should attempt to make a distinction between that which is unknown within a natural context and that which is non-evidently 'supernatural'. I mean, are they not both undefined to a degree that the distinctions which can be made are mostly superfluous?
Not really. Are colliding branes a supernatural explanation to the origins of the universe?
I asked you how one should attempt to classify any distinctions between unknown phenomena - within a natural context, and that which is non-evidently 'supernatural' phenomena? Please, answer the question.
To answer yours one way - I'd suggest that colliding branes would be a supernatural explanation to the origins of the universe, providing the theory was overturned by a more recent theory which garnered a broader acceptance within scientific culture.
Is the idea that an eternal omnipotent omnipresent omniscient being (e.g. the common Christia notion of God) created the universe a supernatural explanation?
What is the difference between the two?
The interpretation of evidence - the knowledge and beliefs of the distinct cultures, as well as, the methods by which they reach their respective conclusions.
stragg writes:
weary writes:
It appears the term 'supernatural' may simply be a cheap way to express that our scientific culture has yet to satisfactorily define a certain thing, no??
Not really. The move from a supernatural answer to a naturalistic one is more than just making something once unknown known.
In what way exactly? While the fundamental's of the concept may have changed, the actual phenomena remains the same.
For example Thor is a supernatural explanation for thunder and lightening. Static electrical build up in storms is a natural explanation. If we had indeed found that a divine super-being was responsible for storms etc. we wouldn't be looking for naturalistic answers to existing unkowns.
Exactly .. almost - wouldn't what was once thought of as 'supernatural' have then transcended into a naturalistic concept?
This would now allow the phenomena to be examined through a lens of scientific criteria by the respective scientific culture.
In the same way, a scientific theory that is overturned within scientific culture is relegated to the dust bins of science fiction1.
We would instead be trying to determine what sort of divine being was responsible for magically sparking life into existence (or whatever).
That's what many are doing - albeit, not all are using the scientific method.
We wouldn't be scientificaly studying such questions.
I don't know if I agree here.
Providing a well regarded body of scientists reached a conclusion that a specific entity was somehow responsible for distinct weather related phenomena, that entity would then cease to be 'supernatural' - plain and simple. The scientific method would still have been the vehicle driven to reach the destination.
We would be seeking divinely inspired spiritual answers to such questions by praying (or otherwise seeking to communicate) with said spritual entity.
Pure poppycock.
What had been previously regarded by both cultures as 'science-fiction' or 'supernatural', would then be regarded as natural within the scientific culture. Why2 would science, after reaching a conclusion that satisfied the demands of scientific criteria, then suddenly adopt the methods of a religious culture?
stragg writes:
weary writes:
For example, fire and lightning have both taken on supernatural connotations within indigenous cultures, and so, it seems in a larger context what you present as 'yet unknowns (e.g. the origins of the universe) that are natural' and 'yet to be explained supernatural' occurences are really one in the same, no ..
Again not really. If you had been able to show those cultures that rather than some spooky mystical unknowable fire spirit imbued with the conscious will to spread and burn things fire was simply a controllable phenomenon which any man with the knowledge to do so could master, create and utilise much like a spear or any other more familiar concept - Then I don't think that is the same as making their concept of fire natural.
Again, I don't know if I can concede here. If it is not classifying the concept of fire as natural, what is it??
The suggestion appears to be, that if one is aware of the scientific explanations for a natural phenomena, they must cease in any believe that a particular phenomena - or experience derived from becoming enjoined with that phenomena, are a superior form of a naturalistic concept, or, perhaps 'supernatural'.
That seems to be a bold declaration of faith. As evidence against this position, I present Article 1 - a full on, complete double rainbow all the way across the sky. Suppose this onlooker is reflecting on the covenant rainbow mytholgy associated within the OT or having issues with his sexuality; perhaps simply caught off guard by the majesty of the natural world or maybe just zoot'd out of his mind, eatin 'shrooms and smokin kush - whatever the case may be ..
Nonetheless, can anybody other than him interpret, or truly judge, what happened to him that day?
The response he displays to this phenomena is likely one of the most profound human moments I've ever seen captured on film or video. So intense. Yet, I find it hard to believe he isn't aware that white sunlight is entering lil' droplets of rain, being broken into a myriad of colors while continuing in slightly different directions as it magnifies and reflects off the back of the raindrop, passing back into the air again, while in the process of being further refracted.
Or, at the least, he knows somebody else is aware of this. My question to you, sir, is this: Would someone be correct, or incorrect, in stating that the full on double rainbow all the way across the sky that this fell'r witnessed first hand, and the experience which was enjoined to it, were in no way 'supernatural'?
Instead you have fundamentally changed what their concept of fire is.
You just stated 'I don't think that is the same as making their concept of fire natural' - which is it?
And replaced a supernatural explanation with a natural one.
Exactly - the concept is variable. The point is, the phenomena remains constant.
One Love
1 ~ aka, the 'supernatural'
2 ~ Answer - they wouldn't.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 08-15-2010 6:24 PM Bailey has replied
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 08-15-2010 7:05 PM Bailey has replied
 Message 140 by Bikerman, posted 08-15-2010 7:49 PM Bailey has not replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 141 of 549 (574432)
08-15-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Straggler
08-15-2010 6:24 PM


Re: Supernatural Vs natural Explanations
Hi stragg ..
stragg writes:
weary writes:
stragg writes:
weary writes:
stragg writes:
In Message 265 of the Peanut Gallery thread in the Coffee House forum, oni writes:
Lets be honest and admit "supernatural" means nothing at all.
... how are we able to distinguish between explanations for as yet unknowns (e.g. the origins of the universe) that are natural and those that are supernatural?
I am curious has to why - or better yet, how, one should attempt to make a distinction between that which is unknown within a natural context and that which is non-evidently 'supernatural'. I mean, are they not both undefined to a degree that the distinctions which can be made are mostly superfluous?
Not really. Are colliding branes a supernatural explanation to the origins of the universe?
I'd suggest that colliding branes would be a supernatural explanation to the origins of the universe, providing the theory was overturned by a more recent theory which garnered a broader acceptance within scientific culture.
So you think physicists are putting forward theories of the supernatural?
Oh, c'mon stragg, you can do better - you know that's not what was written.
stragg writes:
weary writes:
I asked you how one should attempt to classify any distinctions between unknown phenomena - within a natural context, and that which is non-evidently 'supernatural' phenomena? Please, answer the question.
How life emerged on Earth is currently an unknown.
God provided the spark of life - Would be a supernatural explanation to that unknown.
That doesn't answer the question - how does one classify distinctions between unknown natural phenomena and the non-evidently 'supernatural' ?
However, the response given assumes when the 'spark o' life' is provided by a god, it is done so outside of the context of a naturalistic framework.
So another question - how do we arrive at this axiom of yours, 'God provides the 'spark o' life' outside of the context of a naturalistic framework'?
Just curious ..
.. you apparently think that scientists themselves are actually proposing supernatural explanations.
I suggested that once a scientific theory is overturned, it becomes 'science fiction' - as relevant to the scientific culture as anything 'supernatural'.
Which is to say, not very relevant.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 08-15-2010 6:24 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Bikerman, posted 08-16-2010 7:43 AM Bailey has replied
 Message 144 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 8:22 AM Bailey has replied
 Message 146 by bluescat48, posted 08-16-2010 11:18 AM Bailey has replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 142 of 549 (574436)
08-15-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Straggler
08-15-2010 7:05 PM


Re: Full on double rainbow all the way across the sky .. so intense (tense)
Hi stragg ..
stragg writes:
weary writes:
Would someone be correct, or incorrect, in stating that the full on double rainbow all the way across the sky that this fell'r witnessed first hand, and the experience which was enjoined to it, were in no way 'supernatural'?
What is supernatural about either rainbows or experiencing awe at nature? Nothing.
Thus he would be incorrect.
Do you kiss your mum with that mouth?
stragg writes:
weary writes:
stragg writes:
Instead you have fundamentally changed what their concept of fire is.
You just stated 'I don't think that is the same as making their concept of fire natural' - which is it?
It isn't making their supernatural concept of fire natural.
It is replacing their supernatural concept of fire with an entirely different concept of fire that isn't supernatural.
So, one last time for clarity ..
'Replacing their supernatural concept of fire with an entirely different concept of fire that isn't supernatural', isn't making the concept of fire natural to them?
Is that your final answer ?
stragg writes:
weary writes:
stragg writes:
And replaced a supernatural explanation with a natural one.
Exactly - the concept is variable. The point is, the phenomena remains constant.
The phenomenon as observed (e.g. fire) remains constant but the nature of the explanation for that phenomenon doesn't.
Hopefully that clears things up for you.
There is no confusion here to clear up. As was stated, the phenomena remains constant while the concepts are variables.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 08-15-2010 7:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 8:34 AM Bailey has replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 147 of 549 (574543)
08-16-2010 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Straggler
08-16-2010 8:34 AM


Re: Full on double rainbow all the way across the sky .. so intense (tense)
Hi stragg - hope things are well with you & yours ..
stragg writes:
weary writes:
stragg writes:
weary writes:
Would someone be correct, or incorrect, in stating that the full on double rainbow all the way across the sky that this fell'r witnessed first hand, and the experience which was enjoined to it, were in no way 'supernatural'?
What is supernatural about either rainbows or experiencing awe at nature? Nothing.
Thus he would be incorrect.
Do you kiss your mum with that mouth?
I was too busy snogging yours.
Ouch - that beotch better have my money!
Just kiddin' - I really can't speak in regards to your mum, seeing as I don't even know the man and honestly, I've nothing poor to say about him anyway ..
The offspring says it all.
So which part of rainbows or awe do you think requires a supernatural explanation?
A wise man once cautioned me that we must be careful not to let theologians incorrectly frame questions, and there's a sense that this is what's happening.
In Message 137 it was stated that, 'I don't generally perceive 'supernatural' phenomena as anything other than natural phenomena lacking a veritable scientific framework or as phenomena which lays outside of the spectrum of scientific criteria'. You see, our main issue is that the concept of 'supernatural' has remained the variable in our discussion. I am more inclined to agree with oni that '"supernatural" means nothing at all' and you staunchly disagree with that position.
And so, you will be hard pressed to convince me that there is a 'supernatural' explanation for the beauty of the natural world or our varying response to it. A better way to word the question towards me may be, 'Which part of rainbows or awe do you think are unable to be defined using scientific methods?'. To that I may curtly respond, the part where it is testably demonstrated that awe is not experienced in a uniform fashion amongst all the inhabitants of the earth.
Taking that into account, how come I don't blat when I see rainbows?? Perhaps the emotional response displayed on behalf of that fella may be considered something extraordinarily natural. I've admired rainbows and, indeed, witnessed them in the company of others without the effect displayed within that video clip being manifest. Yet, can I safely assume and preach that their was not a 'spark o' the divine' encapsulated within his response in the video?
To some people - mostly the red headed step children of scientists I would presume, science has completed all of its tests, and so, is in current possession of all the answers. However, much like Ricky, I think science still has alotta 'splainin' to do and am glad that actual scientists are going about that task.
So, in what ways can we explain a sense of extraordinary awe within the context of a natural framework?
Can hard, factual science authoritatively respond to that question?
stragg writes:
weary writes:
stragg writes:
It isn't making their supernatural concept of fire natural.
It is replacing their supernatural concept of fire with an entirely different concept of fire that isn't supernatural.
So, one last time for clarity ..
'Replacing their supernatural concept of fire with an entirely different concept of fire that isn't supernatural', isn't making the concept of fire natural to them?
Is that your final answer ?
You are conflating the observed phenomenon (e.g. fire) with the explanation of what that phenomenon is.
We have instead replaced their supernatural explanation of what fire actually is with a naturalistic alternative concept.
Which part of this remains unclear to you?
It doesn't appear to be a matter of clarity, but rather semantics. Of course the 'supernatual' explanation of fire isn't modified, being instead replaced. However, the point is that the phenomena has not changed - only the methods and concepts utilized to reach the respective veritable conclusions.
That's why 'supernatural' was suggested as an outdated term used by some in the ol' skool to identify the occurence of various rare phenomena which yet evade a veritable scientific framework. What we have are two distinct cultures describing the same phenomena - in this case fire, in different ways that correlate to each culture's methodologies. For you, apparently, the 'supernatural' does exsist, but for no other reason than to be paradoxically disproven.
For me that is not an issue, as I do not subscribe to the concept.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 8:34 AM Straggler has not replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 148 of 549 (574544)
08-16-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Bikerman
08-16-2010 7:43 AM


Re: Supernatural Vs natural Explanations
Hello bikerman - hope things are well in your neck of the woods ..
Biker writes:
weary writes:
I suggested that once a scientific theory is overturned, it becomes 'science fiction' - as relevant to the scientific culture as anything 'supernatural'.
Doesn't often happen.
However, it does happen.
You get bits of a theory changing as new data comes in, but the theory itself, being based on evidence, is unlikely to be wrong - it is usually just incomplete or too small a picture. Hence Newton wasn't really wrong, he just had too small a view, so mechanics still works for most purposes but doesn't at the extremes - which is where Einstein comes in. Newton is still extremely relevant though - anyone doing calculations involving ballistics, navigation and most other 'mechanics' applications will use Newtons laws since they will give an answer that is 'good enough' unless your problem involves something moving very fast indeed, or something very small indeed.
All very good points - thanks for the input.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Bikerman, posted 08-16-2010 7:43 AM Bikerman has not replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 149 of 549 (574545)
08-16-2010 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by bluescat48
08-16-2010 11:18 AM


Re: Supernatural Vs natural Explanations
Hi bluescat ..
blue writes:
weary writes:
I suggested that once a scientific theory is overturned, it becomes 'science fiction' - as relevant to the scientific culture as anything 'supernatural'.
When a scientific theory is overturned it is completely discarded by science ..
I agree.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by bluescat48, posted 08-16-2010 11:18 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 150 of 549 (574567)
08-16-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Straggler
08-16-2010 8:22 AM


Re: Supernatural Vs natural Explanations
Hi stragg ..
stragg writes:
If "supernatural" is just a placeholder for the unknown as you claim how can we have recognisably naturalistic and supernaturalistic explanations for these unknowns?
I think what you are asking is how two different cultures can arrive at distinctly different conclusions regarding the same phenomena.
If that's close, I would suggest they each arrive at their respective conclusions by employing different methods.
Message 137
Also, can you share an example of a 'recognizably naturalistic .. unknown' with the rest of the audience?
If not I'd say you're being pedantic.
stragg writes:
weary writes:
I suggested that once a scientific theory is overturned, it becomes 'science fiction' - as relevant to the scientific culture as anything 'supernatural'.
Which is to say, not very relevant.
Actually what you said is the following:
Bailey previously writes: "I'd suggest that colliding branes would be a supernatural explanation to the origins of the universe, providing the theory was overturned by a more recent theory which garnered a broader acceptance within scientific culture."
So are Lamarckian evolution or Hoyles steady state hypothesis supernatural explanations because they have been overturned by better evidenced theories?
Obviously not. So what are you talking about?
I'm suggesting evidently falsified scientific theories, science fiction and the 'supernatural' all maintain zero relevancy within the context of honest science.
Nothing more.
stragg writes:
weary writes:
That doesn't answer the question - how does one classify distinctions between unknown natural phenomena and the non-evidently 'supernatural' ?
You are conflating the observed phenomenon with the explanations put forward for the phenomenon.
No.
I'm asking how anyone can distinguish between non-evidently 'supernatural' and unknown natural phenomena.
I contend they are both undefined to a degree that the distinctions which can be made are simply nonsense.
Message 269
stragg writes:
weary writes:
stragg writes:
God provided the spark of life - Would be a supernatural explanation to that unknown.
.. how do we arrive at this axiom of yours, 'God provides the 'spark o' life' outside of the context of a naturalistic framework'?
Just curious ..
Axiom of mine? You must have me confused with a theist/supernaturalist.
In Message 138 you stated that the claim of a god providing the spark which may be necessary to infuse life would be a supernatural explanation to how life emerged on Earth. That statement assumes if a 'spark o' life' is provided by a god, it is done so outside of the context of a naturalistic framework.
I am asking how you conclude that.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 8:22 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 8:06 PM Bailey has replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 152 of 549 (574750)
08-17-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Straggler
08-16-2010 8:06 PM


In Regards to Mythology as 'Supernatural' ..
Hi stragg, hope things are going good for you - if the question you proposed within the title of the OP could be restated as, 'Has The Hypothesis Derived From a Subjective and Literal Interpretation of Mythology Failed', I may likely agree. Additionally, I may suggest that the hypothesis itself is derived from employing a method which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms.
If, as you assert, supernatural means nothing more than currently unknown how can there be both supernatural and natural explanations to existing scientific questions?
First, there's a sense that the questions are not necessarily 'scientific questions' at all, but rather simply they are plain questions, and so, there are no 'supernatural' explanations to scientific questions as you present, but they're rather religious - or pseudoscientific, explanations to existing questions.
For example, science attempts to answer existing questions employing the methods which correlate to its culture (ie. facts/observation). The religious culture also attempts to answer these same existing questions by employing the methods which correlate with its own culture (ie. tradition/myth).
Separate cultures utilizing different methods of interpreting evidence, while examining the same phenomena, may tend to arrive at variant conclusions.
Message 137, Message 150
Are colliding branes a supernatural explanation to the origins of the universe? Be specific.
It seems any answers given to the origins of the universe which meet the demands of scientific criteria are certainly not 'supernatural' or mythological.
The theories which are by that same criteria falsified within the scientific culture are, more simply put, irrelevant to the question (eg. pseudoscience).
I have never claimed that there are either any supernatural unknowns or phenomenon. I am saying that there are both natural and supernatural explanations being put forward.
And that (as wrong headed as I think those supernatural explanations are) they are not the same as simply saying "it is unknown" or it is "naturalistically unexplaned" as you are asserting.
Supernatural explanations exist. If you are simply saying that there are no supernatural phenomenon only natural phenomenon to which supernatural explanations have been posited then I agree wholeheartedly that this is almost certainly true.
But those supernatural explanations are not just another way of saying "It is unknown" as you are asserting. Some supernatural explanations are detailed alternatives to naturalistic theories and those who believe in them claim to know a great deal (e.g. biblical creationists)
Holy shit - have you been equating a literal rendering of mythology with 'supernatural explanations' ?
This seems to be why we may have been talking past each other to such a large extent, as you appear to be comparing what results in a rigid literal interpretation of mythology with the results arrived at by the methods of science as defined by the scientific culture, and quite honestly, I didn't realize that.
That said, scripturally based creation science is not based on scripture in actual practice, but rather on traditional religious beliefs, which themselves are not necessarily rooted in biblical manuscripts in many cases, as you know; instead, appearing out of thin air at times or consisting of selective appropriating and nullifying of scriptures, which - as fate would have it, is the only way one can construct doctrine from the contradictions found in those various manuscripts.
Perhaps we can agree a creationist who believes in creation as described literally in the book of Genesis is destined for bad science, that is - if what they do can even be granted that title, for it is almost always pseudoscience to start an investigation - after first coming to a foreordained conclusion, while basing it on conflicting genealogies found in an ancient contradictory document which is then purported to declare the world to be ‘6,000 years old' while continuing to look for evidence which must support The TruthTM, and it is particularly bad form to base science on a pre-scientific ancient manuscript in the first place.
A myth is a subjective interpretation of reality while science and history, requiring objective facts as they do, are something altogether different. I thought you were referring to phenomena such as levitation or invisbility cloaks as 'supernatural', and they seem to be rather definable within a scientific context.
As wrong as their supernatural explanations may be, saying that "supernatural" is synonomous with "naturalistic unknown" is simply untrue.
Perhaps it may be considered true, if one could find it agreeable that mythology is - and indeed has always been, the language of religion. As you vicariously suggest, this appears to be a lost possibility within a large portion of the yuhdean and christian traditions, submerged under the doctrine of inerrant history.
In this way myth can then be drained of any inherent meaning as various schools of poli-religious apologists struggle in vain to prove that myth is inerrant as history, then allowing stories such as that of David and Goliath (ie. legendary and mythological in nature), etc., to be successsfully devoid of meaning.
When myths become 'history' or 'science' not only is the language and meaning of myth lost, the scriptures themselves can then be held up to constant ridicule for their historical contradictions and errors of 'fact'. Mythology is becoming an unknown language within a large portion of the religious culture.
There's a sense this is a double loss of sorts, because the meaning of a myth is found in that it is a myth, and it has no meaning in science or as history. So you see, in a way, what you are presenting as 'supernatural' explanations may be more synonomous with "naturalistic unknown" then is generally thought.
stragg writes:
weary writes:
I'm asking how anyone can distinguish between non-evidently 'supernatural' and unknown natural phenomena.
I contend they are both undefined to a degree that the distinctions which can be made are simply nonsense.
Because you continue to think in terms of "supernatural phenomenon" (whatever that may be?) rather than supernatural explanations for phenomenon.
A mythological explanation has religious meaning which is emotional and spiritual - as opposed to scientific meaning, and so, a myth has little to no value within the context of science or history, never having been historical or scientific, but rather a religious myth. I don't blame a lot of people for their reactionary backlash when they rage out at the word myth as though it was a dirty word like 'falsehood' or a 'lie'.
Especially when taking into consideration the great lengths which many pseudoscientists go to in an attempt to equivocate the language of religion with veritable scientific data or historical probability; however, a myth is nevertheless just a means of usings symbols to communicate in religion, which does not make a myth false, but it obviously does not make a myth true in any historical or scientific sense either.
I was not under the impression you were equivocating the rigid literalist interpretation of myth as 'supernatural', and so, you have my attention now.
Apologies to you sir.
stragg writes:
weary writes:
So, in what ways can we explain a sense of extraordinary awe within the context of a natural framework?
Can hard, factual science authoritatively respond to that question?
So you think human feelings of awe require a supernatural explanation.
No, I don't.
The emotions and inherent feelings of awe contained within our collective consciousness attempt to define our existence and reality, themselves contained within our natural world; however, the mechanism by which the brain generates variant thoughts and feelings appears to me to remain largely undefined ...
Would you care to answer the question posed?
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 8:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Straggler, posted 08-18-2010 3:09 PM Bailey has replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 163 of 549 (575888)
08-21-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Straggler
08-18-2010 3:09 PM


On the concept of 'supernatural' as linguistic fodder ..
Hi stragg ..
The way the debate regarding creation seems to be engaged is that certain people believe that if the product of the right wing religious political movement - which is the 'Biblical story of creation', can destroy the heathenous ToE, the former will then somehow be proved correct by default.
Here's to hoping that your intention with regards to this thread doesn't contain the same false dichotomy ..
Your starting position here was that supernatural has no meaning in and of itself and that it is simply a label used to refer to something that is lacking naturalistic explanation.
Almost. That's a starting point for many who have entertained discussion within this thread, although I didn't initially realize you were targeting creo dogma. I feel I'm in pretty good company being in agreement with the likes of Larni (Message 7), JUC (Message 8), nwr (Message 9), oni (Message 265), etc..
Additionally, I didn't claim 'supernatural has no meaning in and of itself and that it is simply a label', but rather (Message 147) 'What we have are two distinct cultures describing the same phenomena {or attempting to answer existing questions} .. in different ways that correlate to each culture's methodologies'.
In response it is my contention that in fact describing an explanation as supernatural does have conceptual meaning ..
Everything has meaning, however this thread has effectively demonstrated that the meaning of 'supernatural' is all but completely subjective.
.. and that no matter how wrong or evidentially silly such beliefs may be, supernatural is not simply used as a placeholder or synonym for unknown.
Incorrect. You employ the 'supernatural' label in your description of explanations you don't validate (ie. creationists render mythology in a literal sense).
Thus, it has been demonstrated by even you exactly how the term is employed as little more than linguistic fodder, regardless of you're refusal to identify the process. As was explained in Message 152, as well as many other messages by other contributors, the 'supernatural' concept is a catch all of sorts.
Now, while this does little to support a conclusion that 'supernatural' - as a valid concept, is anything other than a linguistic place filler, it goes the distance demonstrating the elasticity and subjective nature of the concept itself and how it is used to describe natural occurences that are not understood well.
Even a cursory perusal of some of the topics on display should demonstrate to you that supernaturalists (e.g. biblical creationists) are not simply advocating a position of it is unknown. They are instead advocating explanations that are alternatives to, and which in many cases entirely contradict, scientific naturalistic explanations.
Describing the 'Ol' Mother Hubbard' fable as a literal and historical event does not make it so; much less does it make such an explanation 'supernatural'.
One needn't refer to an explanation as 'supernatural', providing they identify, understand and validate the process that is achieving the description.
Again, what creationists bring to the table isn't 'supernatural', but rather it is very natural and explainable.
Now I think that supernaturalists are wrong.
I don't think so. You agree with them - at least in part, in your shared beliefs that the results of a literal rendering of mythological tales is 'supernatural'.
You also agree with them that if 'God provided the spark of life - {that} Would be a supernatural explanation to that unknown' (Message 138).
However, you ignored me repeatedly (Message 141, Message 150, etc.) rather than support why it is that you believe and claim that.
I believe that supernaturalistic explanations are little more than imagined nonsense.
You've been shown otherwise, as the creeds beheld by creo's aren't pulled from imaginations, but rather from pre-scientific ancient manuscripts.
As well, indigenous peoples conclude fire is magic or 'supernatural' because their culture is employing different methods than scientists'.
But your original assertion that supernaturalist beliefs amount to nothing more than describing something as unknown is patently false.
Nobody stated that creo beliefs and explanations are 'supernatural' except you and repeating yourself ad nauseum does little to support your position. While creo beliefs haven't been suggested as 'supernatural' or unknown by me, I did suggest in what way they may be considered completely natural.
In Message 152, weary writes,
For example, science attempts to answer existing questions employing the methods which correlate to its culture (ie. facts/observation). The religious culture also attempts to answer these same existing questions by employing the methods which correlate with its own culture (ie. tradition/myth) ..
That said, scripturally based creation science is not based on scripture in actual practice, but rather on traditional religious beliefs, which themselves are not necessarily rooted in biblical manuscripts in many cases, as you know; instead, appearing out of thin air at times or consisting of selective appropriating and nullifying of scriptures, which - as fate would have it, is the only way one can construct doctrine from the contradictions found in those various manuscripts ..
{It} is almost always pseudoscience to start an investigation - after first coming to a foreordained conclusion, while basing it on conflicting genealogies found in an ancient contradictory document which is then purported to declare the world to be ‘6,000 years old' while continuing to look for evidence which must support The TruthTM, and it is particularly bad form to base science on a pre-scientific ancient manuscript in the first place ..
Separate cultures utilizing different methods of interpreting evidence, while examining the same phenomena, may tend to arrive at variant conclusions.
Again, I originally thought you were describing phenomena such as levitation or invisiblity as 'supernatural' and they're both definable within nature.
So please ..
  • Should one believe human feelings of extraordinary awe may develop an authoritative natural explanation or that they require a 'supernatural' one?
  • How do we arrive at this axiom of yours, 'God provides the 'spark o' life' outside of the context of a naturalistic framework'?
  • In what ways can we explain a sense of extraordinary awe within the context of a natural framework?
  • Can hard, factual science authoritatively respond to that question?
stragg writes:
weary writes:
stragg writes:
weary writes:
So, in what ways can we explain a sense of extraordinary awe within the context of a natural framework?
Can hard, factual science authoritatively respond to that question?
So you think human feelings of awe require a supernatural explanation.
No, I don't.
The emotions and inherent feelings of awe contained within our collective consciousness attempt to define our existence and reality, themselves contained within our natural world; however, the mechanism by which the brain generates variant thoughts and feelings appears to me to remain largely undefined ...
And your point is what?
See bold ..
stragg writes:
weary writes:
Would you care to answer the question posed?
Tell what question you are posing and I will.
See list ..
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Straggler, posted 08-18-2010 3:09 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 08-23-2010 3:41 PM Bailey has replied
 Message 172 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2010 12:38 PM Bailey has replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 178 of 549 (576622)
08-24-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Straggler
08-23-2010 3:41 PM


Re: On the concept of 'supernatural' as linguistic fodder ..
Hi stragg - all the best to you & yours ..
stragg writes:
The length and rambling nature of your posts are making them almost incomprehensible.
I appreciate the compliment, however the possiblity remains there's a more obvious reason for your lack of comprehension ..
Regardless, I'll try to tone it down to a more pithy approach that better satisfies the apparent needs1 of your intellect and wit.
stragg writes:
I still have no idea why you think human feelings of awe require any supernatural cause.
This is a good thing, as I've yet2 to state they do.
That said, which part of 'I don't.' (Message 152, Message 163, etc.) are you unable to comprehend in such a lengthy, rambling two word response?
stragg writes:
Or even what you think "supernatural" means.
What I think the term means is irrelevant3.
You've already demonstrated in this thread that it means whatever you need it to.
stragg writes:
My use of the term supernatural is as follows: An adjective to describe the attributes of being inherently materially inexplicable as a result of being neither derived from nor subject to natural laws.
Why should one believe you that a god is necessarily underived from, nor subjectable to, extant natural laws.
Because you have the universe mapped out in its entirety or simply because creationists may support you?
stragg writes:
The divine and miraculous concept of Jesus Christ is an example of a supernatural concept. The fact I don't think this entity actually exists has no bearing on whether it can be accurately described as "supernatural" or not.
Why are you moving the goal posts? In your last reaction you claimed ..
In Message 157 stragg writes,
.. this entire debate site (note the name — Evolution Vs Creation) is primarily dedicated to the argument between those who advocate supernatural explanations Vs those who advocate naturalistic ones. The topics over which this debate rages do include some scientific unknowns (e.g. the origins of the universe) but they also include phenomenon to which science provides very definite answers (e.g. the origins of species).
In this statement you made a strong appeal to creation science, so let's deal with one blasphemy at a time.
Do you still feel creationism provides 'supernatural explanations'? If so, why? If not, why not?
stragg writes:
weary writes:
Should one believe human feelings of extraordinary awe may develop an authoritative natural explanation or that they require a 'supernatural' one?
Why do you think they would they require a supernatural explanation?
Again, I've yet to state 'they would they require a supernatural explanation'. The better question may be, why do you feel they don't?
Can you respond to that honestly without answering a question with another question?
stragg writes:
weary writes:
How do we arrive at this axiom of yours, 'God provides the 'spark o' life' outside of the context of a naturalistic framework'?
Because the concept of God in question meets the criteria of being supernatural given above.
The fact I don't think this entity actually exists has no bearing on whether it can be accurately described as "supernatural" or not.
So, a god must necessarily provide the 'spark o' life' outside of a naturalistic framework because a god is necessarily unsubjectable to known natural laws?
This appears to be circular reasoning at its finest - you provide an unevidenced assertion to support your unfalsifiable assumption.
In other words, 'because these tenets best support the framework of my forced atheological rhetoric' - why didn't you just say that?
stragg writes:
weary writes:
Can hard, factual science authoritatively respond to that question?
Are you suggesting that a supernatural cause of such feelings is required simply because you personally know of no natural one?
So close, yet so far away ..
More simply, I'm suggesting you require the concept of 'supernatural explanations' when you're personally unaware of natural ones.
Indeed, that's likely the only reason anyone would attempt such a thing within the confines of rational scientific discourse.
One Love
1 ~ I kid, I kid
2 ~ Article 1 (Message 137) was presented as an example of a phenomena that evades a definitive natural context and as a satirical exercise in thought - it's good to stay in shape.
3 ~ I'd suggest the concept of 'supernatural' is best represented as some order of existence beyond the small portion of the universe that has a veritable scientific framework; perhaps even a departation from what's usually expected, which may appear to transcend the boundaries of our known natural laws.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 08-23-2010 3:41 PM Straggler has not replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 185 of 549 (576795)
08-25-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Straggler
08-24-2010 12:38 PM


Supernatural Is (more than) An ADJECTIVE
Hi stragg - I think you're overthinking things bud ..
I have finally worked out what the hell you are talking about.
Please, don't get my hopes up ..
And in doing so I can see why your thinking is so confused.
.. just to break meh down.
You think that because out of ignorance ..
No - not out of ignorance, but rather out of using methods - which are not scientific, that correlate to their specific culture.
.. someone can look at a fire and conclude that is supernatural whilst another person will look at an eclipse and out of a different form of ignorance conclude that is supernatural — That the term supernatural refers directly to whatever phenomenon one is personally unable to explain.
You see, the thing is, the adjective use of the term is applied to a noun (eg. explanations) which causes the noun to take on a more specific identity. For instance, this doesn't make fire 'supernatural', but rather the explanation which has been deduced without the use of scientific methods. Agreed?
This may also be referred to as a 'noun modifier' in the english language, providing 'supernatural' is being supplied as a noun. I'll explain more in a minute ..
Before I do though, I also want to mention that the issue isn't that they're unable to explain the phenomena, because they do have explanations - non scientific ones. These explanations are arrived at by methods foreign to the scientific community, but does that make indigenous people ignorant?
It might make them naive to the methods and conclusions reached by the scientific culture at large.
But I wouldn't say scientists were ignorant because of an unfamiliariity of religious expression, which is not much different than saying every explanation outside of the scientific culture is 'ignorance'. Out of the context of humor or generalizations, this is simply bigoted extremism masquerading as intellect1.
On the basis that a disparate array of phenomenon have at one time or another been labelled as supernatural you thus conclude that the term has no defined meaning whatsoever.
I've yet to make that claim - it's your claim made on my behalf.
I've simply suggested the term has limited usefulness, perhaps to the point that its's potentially useless.
Is that right?
Not at all unfortunately.
If so the following is why you are wrong.
Can't wait ...
The term supernatural is an adjective. Not a noun.
I wonder if it's this understanding of yours that has you all discombomulated??
This statement is so misleading and incomplete that it may be fair to say it is altogether incorrect.
'Supernatural' is one of those fun words - like 'sacrifice' (eg. noun and verb), that can act as an adjective, an adverb, as well as a noun.
I suggest you don't take my word for it, but rather go straight away to your dictionary and see for yourself.
The fact that it has been applied to a wide range of nouns (fire, eclipse etc.) no more makes it objectively meaningless than the fact that red can be applied to books, toasters, apples or windmills results in the term red being meaningless.
The fact that the term has its place as an adjective and a noun, etc., is what may begin to rob it of its usefulness (or 'meaningfulness').
That is, when one finishes confusing things at times by not being mindful of its particular functions and how they apply to the language.
When we describe something as supernatural we mean that it is inherently materially inexplicable because it is neither derived from nor subject to the laws of nature.
Who's 'we' - you have a mouse in your pocket?
More importantly - how does anyone conclude something being described as 'supernatural' is necessarily underived and unsubjectable to the laws of nature? You would first have to possess the complete knowledge of natural laws in their entirety, which science has yet to accomplish.
Otherwise you are making axiomatic statements - or assumptions, which are deduced from a limited knowledge base.
Now the fact that people have (and do) apply this adjective erroneously to things which it later turns out are perfectly explicable in natural terms does not make the term meaningless or devoid of common conceptual content. The fact that it is highly improbable that anything genuinely supernatural actually exists does not make the term meaningless or devoid of common conceptual content. It is a descriptive term. One that that is all too often applied erroneously as the result of ignorance I agree. But that does not mean the term itself has no meaning..
Yaaaawn ...
The phenomenon may change but the attributes believers imbue these with can be meaningfully called "supernatural.
Yes - which should serve as an indication to others that they aren't aware of ..
  • how the natural laws are being manipulated to produce the phenomena.
    or
  • whether the phenomena is outside of the constraints of natural law.
Without wanting to get too grammatically pedantic on your arse — Basically you are conflating nouns (fire, eclipse etc.) with the adjective (i.e. supernatural) used to describe (correctly or otherwise) the attributes of those nouns.
Have a couple brews & shake it off mate.
But don't forget - the term 'supernatural' is not only what could be referred to as an adjective or an actual noun, but it can also act as a noun modifier.
Even an adverb. It's a bit of a conceptual mess really.
One Love
1 ~ And there's a possibility in the context of humor and generalizations, it is simply bigoted extremism masquerading as humor and generalizations.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2010 12:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2010 9:00 AM Bailey has replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 190 of 549 (576904)
08-26-2010 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Straggler
08-26-2010 9:00 AM


Re: Supernatural Is (more than) An ADJECTIVE
Hey stragg — sadly, this may be our last post I guess (but I hope not) ..
stragg writes:
If you are simply asserting that the term "supernatural" is devoid of any common conceptual meaning at all then I suggest that you get a collection of dictionaries and look up the word to see how it is defined.
Honestly straggler, I don’t think anybody said the term’s ‘devoid’ of any common conceptual meaning. That’s overstating things, I agree.
I suggested it can become a bit of a conceptual mess and may not always be useful in a description (without some clarification), which are different attributes altogether. Also, I've given what I’d consider reasonable definitions (up for scrutiny of course) ..
In Message 137 weary writes,
I don't generally perceive 'supernatural' phenomena as anything other than natural phenomena lacking a veritable scientific framework or as phenomena which lays outside of the spectrum of scientific criteria ..
and
In Message 178 weary writes,
I'd suggest the concept of 'supernatural' is best represented as some order of existence beyond the small portion of the universe that has a veritable scientific framework; perhaps even a departation from what's usually expected, which may appear to transcend the boundaries of our known natural laws.
I think the second one presents better wording than the former.
Please - one more thing before you throw your stick at me, and the following isn't meant as sarcasm.
Another reason this word play regarding ‘supernatural’ seems to happen is when people hear the term the default stance appears to be that the phenomena being described is necessarily outside of the constraints of natural law.
Yet, isn’t it possible the phenomena being described is inside of the constraints of natural law, which is to say unknown - yet, extant natural laws are being manipulated to produce the phenomena? ABE: Isn't it even possible that known natural laws are being manipulated in a way that were not familiar with?
Like you say, we can’t reasonably discount a possibility and it would seem these types of possibilities may be all the more likely considering the number of things that have been described ‘supernatural’, but - as you said, turned out to be natural after all.
This interpretation of the concept ‘supernatural’ is not as rigidly defined as the default position I mentioned. It’s different, in that it allows the phenomena being described to simply appear to transcend the boundaries of our known natural laws.
In this way the term does not necessitate the phenomena to exist outside of extant natural law; however, it necessarily allows for the phenomena to exist outside of our known natural laws. I see these two possibilities as distinct from one another.
Does this seem reasonable to you, am I communicating poorly or am I way off?
Or maybe a combination of all the above??
This will be my last post in response to you. Because (to put it bluntly) I think you are a bit of a twat.
You wouldn’t be the first lol. I didn’t mean to get you all sore at me though ..
I thought we were sparrin’ junk yard dog style. If it means anything - I’m sorry man.
Seriously.
In the end, honestly, I’ve tried to outline the main issue I have above - do you have enough juice left in you for one more round?
If I make an earnest attempt to quit bein’ a prick??
If not, I understand.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : ABE ...

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2010 9:00 AM Straggler has 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