Lets take a little break from politics and have us a real atheist conversation.
Personally, I’m open to the idea of the existence of supernatural phenomena, and I believe mainstream religions are actually complicated incomplete stories full of misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and half-truths.
Basically, I think that these stories are not as simple and straightforward as they seem to be to religious people. I feel like there is a lot more to them. Concluding that all these stories are just made up or came out of nowhere is kind of hard for me.
Paraphrasing I believe — Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
No nothing is “supernatural “. We may not yet know what we’re seeing or exactly what happened… we simply don’t understand it yet.
Yet is relevant point there IMHO. We will.
and not understanding how something functions isnt a reason to assign intent or awareness to the thing.
But there is also a possibility that what we don’t understand transcends the laws of nature. That’s what supernatural means. A possibility that our universe is also governed by supernatural forces, as much as it is governed by natural forces.
If something can “transcend” the laws of nature, then the ability to do that is part of the laws of nature, and thus it transcends nothing. We just didn’t know all of the rules.
If ghosts are real, then they aren’t breaking the rules of nature because clearly the rules of nature allow for ghosts, we just don’t understand how yet, but then ghosts are natural.
By definition, anything real is natural, and anything supernatural is not.
That’s just a weak reformulation of the “God of the gaps” fallacy.
The difference is that science is observable and testable, god is not. This key difference, changes it from being a fallacy.
So, in the god of the gaps fallacy it goes like this:
- GotG: Something unknown = GOD!
- Science: Something unknown = “We don’t know!”
- GotG: Ghosts = GOD!!
- Science: Ghosts = “We need a way to reliably test and confirm!”
Science isn’t anti-god either. It’s just pro-knowledge. Observable, testable, verifiable knowledge.
Science isn’t anti-god either. It’s just pro-knowledge. Observable, testable, verifiable knowledge.
This part. If ghosts are observable, testable, and verifiable, then we would have a way of measuring things. Maybe ghosts are 4th dimensional entities. It’s very possible they are real and it’s purely something we haven’t been able to measure thus far.
Science gets stuff wrong all the time. The point of science is to be adapting and learning. And part of that involves verifying credibility of a new source of information.
Unfortunately, almost all of the sources of “proof” of things like ghosts are heavily biased in favor of proving things over disproving, and there are a lot of people throwing clear scams into the mix. Science needs to go in with an open mind. “I want ghosts to be real, and the wind moved this door, therefore it was a ghost” is not valid proof of ghosts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WohbNt18wNs Things like this. A pastor that can walk on air, which is clearly fake. If the pastor believed he could walk on air, why would he fake it. This is not proof that people CAN’T walk on air, but it’s a great example of why when someone claims they can, you should figure out why lying about it benefits them (this guy clearly wants more people to tithe to his church).
GotG benefits from the default being “GOD!” for all things, because it leaves them in power. Science has no benefit from anything except the truth. Sure there will be liars in science as well and a lot of people will optimistically want to believe the lies if they sound nice, but looking at things like LK-99, it winds up disproven when it’s a lie. Capitalism and industry don’t care about your fake superconductor. That doesn’t benefit them, they only care about real superconductors.
Saying that I’m making a god of the gaps argument would also mean that you are making a science of the gaps argument.
Except, when you fill the gaps with science, you have evidence and proof. Not superstition and ancient myth.
But you’re still leading yourself into a fallacious argument. It’s not any better.
It’s only a fallacious argument if you don’t say “we can’t answer that yet” and maybe add, “but here are some theories…”
“I don’t know” does not mean “therefore the supernatural is real.”
But we still need the word “supernatural” to describe such things. Otherwise, what do we call the phenomena?
Fictional
Er um— no.
There is nothing that is “supernatural “
There is nothing that is proven and repeated not beholden to the laws of nature.
Yes it is possible, but there isn’t any proof of anything transcending nature. You’re making a “god of the gaps” argument. It is illogical to assume that god or anything supernatural keeps getting smaller and smaller so as to hide in those ever shrinking gaps.
But we need a name to describe such extraordinary events. If you erase it, what do we call such phenomena? There’s a reason why the word exists. Also, saying that I’m making a god of the gaps argument would also mean that you are making a science of the gaps argument, where you assume that science will always have an answer, and that it is the only truth. It’s why I believe that it’s best to sit on the fence on this topic, your mind being open to ideas of supernatural phenomena, as you still consider rational scientific explanations.
This “then why do we have a word for that” is such a a strange argument
We also have a word for elves, doesn’t mean they exist
It’s the same logic I see people applying to Korean, with arguments like “they have no word for depression, therefore they’re happier”, completely ignoring the fact that they have a bridge called “suicide bridge” (guess why)
If you think the word supernatural is so unneeded, you can petition for it to be taken out of dictionaries and Wikipedia.
Supernatural phenomena do not actually exist as far as I can tell. There’s no actual evidence to my knowledge, and plenty of evidence that humans are not particularly good at perceiving or interpreting the universe around us as it actually is. Our brains are not a reliable narrator, supernatural phenomena are most likely a consequence of this rather than anything genuinely supernatural.
This argument is a very common one. It’s only valid at a scientific standpoint, since you can’t really scientifically prove something that transcends the laws of nature. However, at a historical standpoint, the existence of supernatural phenomena can be considered. There is also no evidence that supernatural phenomena does not exist.
Any non-falsifiable theory is only worth so much.
And can still be considered.
Not really, because every non-falsifiable theory is true at the same time. I mean, I can’t forbid anyone from considering.
And that’s what I’m advocating. For people to sit on the fence, instead of leaning hard-science, or hard-supernatural.
You may have misunderstood me - supernatural theories are worthless because they are non-falsifiable.
That doesn’t make them worthless. Have you ever listened to stories that may involve potential supernatural forces?
I’m not sure what you mean about a historical standpoint. I don’t think there’s anything in the historical record that could be considered actual evidence of supernatural phenomena. History as an academic discipline is a kind of science and generally approaches the subject matter with the scientific method.
What? Supernatural stuff has been talked about throughout history.
While James Randi was alive, he offered $1,000,000 for proof of the supernatural. He never got that proof. I think that’s pretty telling.
There’s stuff I’ve experienced that I can’t understand or explain. Certainly, I trust other’s witnesses of their own experiences, even if they seem supernatural to me. But, I don’t consider that good enough evidence to believe in the supernatural.
Unexplained does not mean unexplainable nor supernatural.
There are all kinds of things in my life I have experienced that I cannot explain. For one thing, I am not an expert on everything. For another, I am a prisoner inside a skull that has to rely on not especially precise equipment in terms of sensory input. In other words, the meat sacks in our heads cannot be trusted. In fact, going back to Randi, if they could be trusted, Randi and other magicians would never have a job.
None of that is evidence for the supernatural.
Let me preface this by saying I tend to go with the Null hypothesis until proven otherwise, and as such don’t believe in the unproven supernatural.
Regardless, there are two ways to interpret James Randi never getting proof.
- There are no provable supernatural claims.
- Those who could prove a supernatural claim have no use for a $1,000,000 prize.
Re number. 2, they must also either be ignorant of the existence of charities or can’t think of a single one that could use that $1,000,000 they would have no use for. So I don’t accept that.
Perhaps. Though it’s entirely conceivable that the cost of revealing said supernatural proof would be detrimental to their life in such a way that no use of a $1,000,000 would justify it. Or, ala Mr. Manhattan, they have lost their empathy and/or worldly concern. Or they could just be massive dicks who could make $1,000,000 easier if their secret is kept, like Hayden Christensen in Jumper.
So I stand by my point that only looking at James Randi’s $1,000,000 prize as proof that “there are no supernatural claims that can be proven” is an example of sampling bias.
Assuming the correctness of a hypothesis without sufficiently disproving potentially valid alternatives is how we wound up with the acceptance of the supernatural. It’s just bad epistemology.
Regardless, I believe that James Randi’s offer, combined with the lack of any other provable and sufficiently documented supernatural occurrences means it’s more than reasonable to not hold any belief in the supernatural. I certainly don’t myself.
ETA: 3. I suppose a third possibility is they were unable/unwilling to travel or were entirely unaware of said prize. Something like a hermetic monk for example.
If I had legit supernatural powers, $1,000,000 would be chump change to reveal those powers. No way.
I’m a strict naturalist - I believe that supernatural phenomena do not exist. I do not believe in the unknown.
deleted by creator
Why? Supernatural phenomena isn’t really generally unknown.
What do you mean? That people experience supernatural phenomena?
If they didn’t, they would it be a thing?
Ok. I don’t believe they do experience supernatural. I think people are gullible, only selectively critical, and are often influenced by their culture to believe in supernatural explanations. And some people are just frauds. I believe honest people get tricked by their culture to regard unknown as supernatural, and by accepting that explanation, never find the natural behind the unknown.
There is no supernatural. Everything is natural. I’m agnostic, so I won’t rule out something exists some people would call a god, but even if it exists, I would count it as natural.
I disagree. Supernatural is anything that transcends the laws of nature. Something that transcends the laws of nature is not natural.
To paraphrase Tim Minchin, the supernatural has either not been proved to exist or has been proved to not exist.
If you can test it - it’s natural. If you can’t test it - you can’t prove it even exists.
Inability to test something does not prove it doesn’t exist.
It doesn’t prove it, no, but it doesn’t need to. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim, so any claim should come with a way to test it. Otherwise, you can ALWAYS say, “Well, the flying spaghetti monster did it. You can’t prove me wrong.”
What are the laws of nature? You keep saying that as if it proves something but haven’t defined it. Where do the laws come from?
There hasn’t been any proof in all of history that any supernatural phenomenon was real.
Until there is, my thoughts on it are: not real, never happened.There also hasn’t been any proof that supernatural phenomena doesn’t exist. It’s why I choose to keep an open mind about it. It’s a subject that suffers a lot of stigma in the science-centric world we live in, and thus few people talk about it.
It rightly suffers stigma because it does not follow the scientific method, but claims to have scientific merit.
Supernatural phenomena does not claim to have scientific merit. You are also assuming that science will eventually explain everything about everything. That it is the only existing truth. This is called scientism, and it oversteps science’s proper boundaries.
Um… no? Not what I said and not what I believe.
To quote professor Farnsworth: “The pursuit of knowledge is hopeless and eternal. HOORAY!”
We’re always going to have things we don’t know. The point is to build on the knowledge we do have and to slowly get better. What the belief in the supernatural does is actually the shortcut to “being able to explain everything about everything”, because you’re presupposing the answer without any proof or testing done. Sure, those things might be possible, but so might be waking up in the Pokemon universe tomorrow.
Until there’s proof, I have no reason to act like there is. It’s a fun game to think about, but it shouldn’t hold any weight in how you see the universe we actually live in.
Also, the natural universe is weird enough already. Have you heard of the fine structure constant? Basically, we found this one constant number within all of these different fundamental formulas for how the universe behaves, but it doesn’t have a unit associated. So, we know that it exists and can calculate it, but no one knows WHY it exists. We think it’s a constant, but it might have changed over time, so we’re trying to find ways to test that. We might never know, but those questions are far more interesting to me than “maybe aliens”.
Yes, there’s going to be stuff we don’t know about. That’s why I’m advocating for open-mindedness to supernatural phenomena. That’s my goal.
There also hasn’t been any proof that supernatural phenomena doesn’t exist.
You can play that game all day with anything. It’s not a valid argument.
Exactly. There’s no definitive proof that winged monkeys won’t fly out of my asshole five minutes from now, but I’m not making plans that assume they will.
Well, you sold me. I definitely believe in your five minute asshole monkeys!
I don’t.
But I want to.
Why is it not a valid argument?
That’s already been explained to you by others here.
I want to hear your opinion. That’s the point of this post. It’s how we have healthy debates.
I’ve already started my opinion.
All you’re doing is telling people no. That’s not a debate.You haven’t really said anything. You just said that my argument isn’t valid, refused to elaborate why, and when asked to do so, you said that others have told me why, when I’m getting completely different opinions from multiple people. Also, disagreeing with people is literally what makes a debate a debate. What do you want me to do? Agree with everyone even if I don’t? That’s not how a genuine conversation works.
There also hasn’t been any proof that supernatural phenomena doesn’t exist
You can’t prove a negative. Which is why in the scientific method, the onus is on the person making the claim to provide the proof, not the other way around. That’s why we rarely engage in debates with people who don’t grasp that concept, because for the most part they’re argument comes down to “You can’t prove it doesn’t exist, so therefore I’m right.”
-
60% the person experiencing it misunderstood or misinterpreted what they were looking at because they were stupid and gullible, but not maliciously making things up.
-
35% completely fabricated and never happened and created to legitimately defraud or troll others.
-
5% something scientific that we simply don’t understand yet.
-
0% actual supernatural occurrences.
That 5% is the most exciting thing in the world.
Completely agree.
What constitues “something scientific”? That sounds fascinating.
There’s a whole crap tonne about the universe we really don’t understand yet; especially when you get down to the quantum level, spooky action at a distance, wave functions, etc…
In a very real way, we’re still just cavemen banging on rocks as far as the sum total knowledge of how things work out there in what we call “reality”. So within that vast gap of what we know, and what we don’t know, there’s could be a lot of things going on.
Is that a ghost? or is that a momentary glitch in the fabric of space-time? Or is it just someone mistaking a cars headlight bouncing of a chandelier and into a door that is ajar at just the right angle. One of those theories is provable using the scientific method and the knowledge that we currently have. One of those theories might eventually be able to be proven with knowledge that we don’t yet possess. And one of those theories is so-called “supernatural”.
As a reasonable human with critical thinking skills, I’ll put my money on either of the last ones before I’ll put my money on the first.
“Provable”? Nah. I prefer “useful”.
This desire for “Truth” is strange to me. I see no necessary connection between ideas and phenomena.
I see no necessary connection between ideas and phenomena
That’s fair enough. You’re welcome to live however you want to. I’m just explaining the difference between science and mysticism. It’s not going to affect the average person’s life in any fashion whether they believe in ghosts or not; they’ll still go to work, buy groceries, get old and die.
But the rejection of science leads inexorably down to a path where a cult of ignorance starts to form; where those who aren’t intellectually curious but still want to have an opinion on stuff start to think that their opinion is just as valid as actual facts. And we see what happens when that kind of willful ignorance works its way into the public discourse.
In short, you’re welcome to not differentiate between ideas and actual scientific phenomena. But someone has to, because society only functions when decisions are made by people who share the same basic knowledge of reality.
I’m not rejecting science. I think it’s fine.
What is a “scientific phenomenon”?
Something that is able to potentially be explained by following the scientific method.
-
It’s entirely possible that supernatural phenomena exist. It’s also possible that what we call “supernatural” is merely science we don’t understand yet. After all, things like lightning and disease used to be attributed to gods, evil spirits, witchcraft, etc. I guess I’d call myself an open-minded skeptic, if that makes any sense.
The point of “super” natural is that it CAN’T be explained using the rules of our universe. Unexplained things that COULD be explained aren’t super. They’re just natural.
Makes sense.
99% of people don’t know how electricity works. About the same for the internet. About ten people on the planet could make a computer processor
Yeah, it makes sense!
If it can be oberved and explained then it isn’t supernatural. Therefore nothing can be supernatural.
A ton of real things would fit in with all the supernatural stereotypes if we didn’t already accept them due to science.
I disagree. You seem to be unfamiliar with the definition of supernatural. Supernatural is anything that transcends the laws of nature. Not things that can’t be observed or explained. Something that defies the laws of nature is not natural now, is it?
Just because we do not know all the laws dosen’t mean something dosen’t have an explanation. The universe is under no obligation to make sense.
But what do we call the phenomena then, if I can’t call it supernatural?
I don’t believe in “supernatural phenomena” either. If they’d exist, we’d actually have prove of their existence. There’s about 8 billion people on this planet and for some reason all the “recorded” phenomena date back to before everyone had an easy to record device in their pockets. They’ve all gone down to 0 for some odd reason, even though it is as easy as ever to actually provide literal proof - if they existed in the first place.
People who experience supernatural phenomena are experiencing either natural phenomena they are too stupid to understand, are fooled by man made things, or are hallucinating for whatever reason.
The reason why you don’t see in supernatural phenomena is because those who experience it don’t report it, because of the stigmatization surrounding the subject. If you say you saw something supernatural and reported it, people will ridicule you, or call you crazy. If video evidence is provided, it’s fake or edited. There are however videos featuring things that cannot be explained rationally, opening the door to potential supernatural explanations.
There are however videos featuring things that cannot be explained rationally
You can – quite literally – create any effect on video. You should go watch that guy that debunks YouTube videos for a living. He shows you exactly how the effects were created, etc.
Yes.
“let’s talk about a topic. But I’m gonna tell you you’re wrong with no evidence”
Weird way to spend your time, but hey, at least you got a hobby. I’m just an idiot replying to a reply of a weird hobby.
I don’t see where I told him that he’s wrong. I just told him why you won’t really hear about supernatural stuff. We’re having a conversation. I don’t know what you want me to do.
There are like 9 ghost hunting TV shows on Hulu, probably. Belief in the supernatural isn’t some underground fringe theory that will get you shunned or locked up. There are oodles of people out there that earnestly believe in spirits and psychics and auras and reincarnation and witchcraft and whatever the fuck else people can come up with to either
a.) make sense of a world they don’t understand or b.) help them feel like they have more control in a world that makes them feel powerless
And each of them would be absolutely thrilled if there was some incontrovertible proof of their particular flavor of magic, but there isn’t, and those people are suckers. If you’re willing to believe that there’s any amount of paranormal shit going on in the world, despite having no proof of it, you might want to reevaluate your position as an atheist. I know I would.
Uh-huh…
There are however videos featuring things that cannot be explained rationally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_effect
Also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(illusion)
I saw David Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China on live TV. I don’t think he actually walked through the Great Wall of China. I also don’t think he made the Statue of Liberty disappear.
I also saw Teller of Penn and Teller drown in a water tank with my own eyes at a live show and he stayed there, dead and unmoving, for the entire intermission. Then he was back on stage a few minutes later.
I do not think Teller drowned and came back from the dead even though that is exactly what I saw.
Yeah, most unexplained videos go through verifications to make sure it’s not FX, and when it’s not, it’s how they end up unexplained. This is especially common in the UFO community.
Verification by whom? Why should that person or people be trusted? Do they already have a bias towards believing in the supernatural?
The Pentagon.
Now you’re just lying. The Pentagon has done no such thing. The closest they have even come to what you are claiming is saying they can’t explain it.
Yes, that’s what I’m trying to tell you. Unexplained. That means that The Pentagon has tried to figure out what they were looking at, but they left it as unexplained. We’ve also had many UAP hearings in congress where they disclosed a bunch of UFOs, and alien stuff. Anyway, yeah. The US govt is embracing the possible existence of extraterrestrial life running around here on Earth.
There are no supernatural phenomena. There are things that really happen (which are natural) and hallucinations and delusions (which also arise naturally). That’s all. Most of the woo I see is either the result of deliberate deception or stupidly implausible interpretation.
Let me ask you a funny question, and see where this conversation takes us.
Do you think that the current reality we experience as humans is true reality?
Wait, is this a depiction of the flat earth dome cutting someone in half?
You look at it too literally, but yes, that’s what it looks like. It’s actually a symbolic painting supposed to represent the pursuit for mystical knowledge.
It’s a bad Victorian picture of their defective understanding of the medieval mystical world view.
Asking if the supernatural exists is not a scientific question whose answer can be derived empirically. Which to me means the question isn’t even worth asking until a bunch of other questions can be asked / answered enough that this question becomes a scientific one, belief really has nothing to do with it (not sure I’m even capable of belief like that).
Concluding that all these stories are made up IS the simplest and most logical explanation. But, they almost certainly do not come from nothing. We as a species are kinda hardwired to understand things, and when we encounter something we don’t, we have a tendency to either make shit up or seek things that satisfy that understanding (even if its not really understanding). The result is that we have all these fantastic stories and myths that are only distantly related to reality.
So basically, you’re saying that if it’s not science, it’s not worth the time?
Seconding custard_swallower. Strict naturalism. I see no reason to believe in any supernatural claim of any kind.
Relatively recently I had a new hypothesis for some of the feelings people attribute to hauntings; bad vibes. I know someone who smokes indoors in their home. Before I had purged supernatural beliefs of all kinds from my worldview I thought there was some kind of curse or haunting wrong with the place. No, it’s the ill effects of third-hand smoke.
Belief in non-theistic supernatural phenomena appears to be a crutch for theistic supernatural belief; it gives a convenient explanation for something so that you don’t exercise your rational faculties to find the real reason and then have the kind of experience that can contribute to unraveling god-beliefs.
Of course, there are rational explanations to things that people think are supernatural, but some things transcend rational explanations, and remain unexplained. This is where we may start to consider the supernatural.
I try to keep my thinking in line with scientific materialism. That also means things I believe need to be falsifiable, which means, I don’t entirely believe them. There there always needs to be a bit of a hole or escape hatch in any truth to prevent it from becoming dogma.
I don’t “believe” what I’m about to say, but it’s something that has come up for me many times under psychedelics, which is the concept of a ‘consciousness first’ manifestation of reality. It’s the closest thing I have to a spiritual or supernatural belief, and it’s not really a belief because I don’t believe it, but I do entertain the idea from time to time. The basic argument is that we’ve got the order of operations backwards, that the universe doesn’t manifest consciousness through emergent properties, but rather that consciousness manifests universe concepts and scenarios that end up being plausible. This concepts extends the concept of consciousness to all matter and energy as well, because it all ends up being one and the same. I think of it as an extension of some Taoist thinking around wei wu wei where, because one is aught to find what they are looking for, if we can step back and stop dictating what we think/demand reality to be, reality may actually be much more fluid if we aren’t so dogmatic in our thinking about it.
Anyways, I don’t really believe any of that. But I think it would make for good science fiction, although it’s already been done extremely well by Le Guin in her novella The Lathe of Heaven.
That also means things I believe need to be falsifiable
It’s possible to have real science without it being falsifiable in the Popperian sense. For example, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, medicine (unless your sense of ethics would even shame a Nazi).
Popper’s goal was to discredit soft sciences like sociology because he was an extreme conservative who didn’t like the findings that people like Horkheimer and Adorno were coming up with.
As for psychedelics, one part of the mind that’s affected by psychedelics is the part that tells you what’s important and meaningful. What you’re being shown is the subjectivity and emptiness of that sense of awe.
