How unlikely is the supernatural?

[Mithrae]

I've been intrigued by the opinions a few folk have expressed regarding the supernatural lately. To begin with, here's a few points which I suspect nearly all folk on the forum should more or less agree with:

- Our minds and imaginations can often play tricks on us
- People have been known to lie or deceive regarding supernatural claims
- Much that was previously explained by or considered as supernatural has since been naturally explained
- We routinely dismiss many supernatural claims without any specific investigation (eg. primitive myths)
- No supernatural claim has been proven beyond doubt to the modern world*

(*Note that this doesn't preclude general evidence for the supernatural, which some folk would argue, and we can't claim that no supernatural thing has been conclusively proven to individuals.)



Notachance argues that we should hold the same standard when considering supernatural claims as we do when a person's future (and perhaps their very life) is in question - that of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Going even further, Furrowed Brow likens the probability of the supernatural to one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent, and says that he'd accept far-fetched conspiracy theories rather than a supernatural claim.

Personally I'd try to weigh the evidence for any given supernatural claim as best I can and judge it on it's own merits. I'd require a higher standard of evidence before 'believing' the claim than I would of naturalistic phenomena, but I don't believe we know enough about the nature of the universe to designate anything as super-natural and intrinsically implausible.



So what about everyone else? How unlikely do you consider the supernatural? How would you approach new supernatural claims? And why?

[Slopeshoulder]

There are trillions of trillions of trillions of events we can examine, and all turn out to be natural, and none turn out to be supernatural.

Consider that by definition everything we can examine is natural. If so, what you are saying is tautological, jejune.
Perhaps there are gajabazillion events that we cannot examine, ever. These might be nautural in a diferent dimension, or we might call them supernatural. The meaning of supernatural is unclear. But what you're doing is sort of saying all we can see is cats and none of the cats are not cats. Therefore everything must be cats. That's not kosher thinking. It only means we don't have the means to look at not-cats, and if we wish to, and we do indeed, it's about imagination and discernement and possibility, especially if a cat-only world gets you down.
You're equating contingent limits with possibilities. You've got a lens, it's good at looking at what you look at. It has nothing to say about other stuff.

I agree that the average magical religious fact claim is useless crap, but moving beyond that you're argument gets thin and circular.

[Furrowed Brow]

But this is not at heart a problem of probability of outcomes or possible causes of an event. If someone recovers from what looks like a terminal disease or some such the chances that they were cured by a wave of Harry Potter’s magical wand are not 1/10^600, they are zero. To even to begin to talk about probabilities is to make a category mistake. It is not just because Harry Potter is meant to be fiction it is because the magic narrative appeals to us in all its forms. It is a human foible, and it sticks around because it gives us a thrill. But the fact that we have narratives in our old books that some folk take very seriously, or that someone has convinced themselves of the truth of spirits, ghosts or anything else does not make those narratives anymore than what they are ... human narratives. Even as Mithrae points out that some of these issue from deep within the human psyche, this does not make a supernatural claim possibly true or false. To ensure that we have to look at the logical form of the proposition and make sure what we are saying can at least in principle be tested and falsified on a set of conditions that do not rely on the original calim being true e.g "you will one day find hell all to real" is not a calim that can be meaningfully falsified. It is still a category mistake until the form of the propositions becomes analytically meaningful. Which is to say: to be able to place the supernatural claim amongst the category of things that might be true, or might be false, the claim has to be testable and falsifiable.

The retort I guess is to try and to insist there is some outside chance of magical narratives and psychological fears being a real ontological problem, but that is to just systematically miss the point, and even most of us who live without the supernatural manage to do that at times. Where we divided is over sense of what it means to say something that has a possibility of being true. For some of us there is overwhelming evidence to show beyond refutation supernatural claim are only the product of the human imagination, narratives, and human relationships, and there is zero evidence that those who immerse themselves in the supernatural narrative ever say anything testable. If we could turn it into a science it would lose its thrill and there would be no point to the narrative. These problems don’t arise because of problems of ontology and we are not stumbling over epistemological problem. It all comes down to the semantic form of the claim that is the problem.

The trouble with entertaining the possibility of someone walking on water being a true story or any other supernatural claim is that we begin to turn a blind eye to the intricate reality of human psychology. Whilst ignoring the fact that the claim is never open to be tested or falsified.

[jamesmorlock]

It only means we don't have the means to look at not-cats, and if we wish to, and we do indeed, it's about imagination and discernement and possibility, especially if a cat-only world gets you down.

Why is using our imaginations and speculating about possibilities better than just admitting that we don't know?

[Slopeshoulder]

It only means we don't have the means to look at not-cats, and if we wish to, and we do indeed, it's about imagination and discernement and possibility, especially if a cat-only world gets you down.

Why is using our imaginations and speculating about possibilities better than just admitting that we don't know?

Who said it was better?

Why can't they co-exist?

[olavisjo]

to be able to place the supernatural claim amongst the category of things that might be true, or might be false, the claim has to be testable and falsifiable.

This itself is a claim that might be true, or might be false.

How is it testable and falsifiable?

[Furrowed Brow]

to be able to place the supernatural claim amongst the category of things that might be true, or might be false, the claim has to be testable and falsifiable.

This itself is a claim that might be true, or might be false.

How is it testable and falsifiable?

My point is about the semantic rules that constrain how we speak and think meaningfully. If a claim has no conditions on which it can be said to be true and no conditions on which it can be said to be false then clearly it does not make sense to talk about that claim as a matter of possibility or probability. That makes no sense. It is like talking about the possibility of winning the lottery when you don’t have a lottery ticket. Without a lottery ticket thinking you might win is fantasy. Likewise if any claim (with the exception of a tautology) does not have conditions which would make it true and conditions on which it is false then to continue to talk about the claim in terms of a possibility is also fantasy, and clearly to continue to think the claim is saying something possibily real is a category mistake. So the point is that this is a question of semantic rules. What makes these rules true is that they are implied by what it means to form a proposition, and you can’t form a proposition if they are not true. And if the rules were false then nothing anyone said would be true or false.

[Mithrae]

to be able to place the supernatural claim amongst the category of things that might be true, or might be false, the claim has to be testable and falsifiable.

This itself is a claim that might be true, or might be false.
How is it testable and falsifiable?

My point is about the semantic rules that constrain how we speak and think meaningfully. If a claim has no conditions on which it can be said to be true and no conditions on which it can be said to be false then clearly it does not make sense to talk about that claim as a matter of possibility or probability. That makes no sense. It is like talking about the possibility of winning the lottery when you don’t have a lottery ticket. Without a lottery ticket thinking you might win is fantasy.

An example of a claim - 'I might win the lottery' - which is false given the conditions (no lottery ticket) is hardly a good example of a claim with no condition on which it is true or false. Confused thinking?

Likewise if any claim (with the exception of a tautology) does not have conditions which would make it true and conditions on which it is false then to continue to talk about the claim in terms of a possibility is also fantasy, and clearly to continue to think the claim is saying something possibily real is a category mistake. So the point is that this is a question of semantic rules. What makes these rules true is that they are implied by what it means to form a proposition, and you can’t form a proposition if they are not true. And if the rules were false then nothing anyone said would be true or false.

The claim "Jesus walked on water" has a condition which would make it false (he didn't) and a condition which would make it true (he did).

The claim "An invisible, dimension-jumping dragon made the table float" has a condition which would make it false (it didn't) and a condition which would make it true (it did).

You seem to be confusing rules of thought and logic with our capacity for relative certainty or testability of claims. Testability is a pre-requisite for genuine knowledge, not for genuine possibility (or even probability). I can't test the claim that "there's more to the universe than my mind and imagination," but that doesn't change the fact that it's possible (and even probable) that the claim is true.

[Flail]

I've been intrigued by the opinions a few folk have expressed regarding the supernatural lately. To begin with, here's a few points which I suspect nearly all folk on the forum should more or less agree with:

- Our minds and imaginations can often play tricks on us
- People have been known to lie or deceive regarding supernatural claims
- Much that was previously explained by or considered as supernatural has since been naturally explained
- We routinely dismiss many supernatural claims without any specific investigation (eg. primitive myths)
- No supernatural claim has been proven beyond doubt to the modern world*

(*Note that this doesn't preclude general evidence for the supernatural, which some folk would argue, and we can't claim that no supernatural thing has been conclusively proven to individuals.)



Notachance argues that we should hold the same standard when considering supernatural claims as we do when a person's future (and perhaps their very life) is in question - that of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Going even further, Furrowed Brow likens the probability of the supernatural to one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent, and says that he'd accept far-fetched conspiracy theories rather than a supernatural claim.

Personally I'd try to weigh the evidence for any given supernatural claim as best I can and judge it on it's own merits. I'd require a higher standard of evidence before 'believing' the claim than I would of naturalistic phenomena, but I don't believe we know enough about the nature of the universe to designate anything as super-natural and intrinsically implausible.



So what about everyone else? How unlikely do you consider the supernatural? How would you approach new supernatural claims? And why?

I don't think we can honestly talk in percentages of likelihood when it comes to speculation about supernaturals. When it comes to supernaturals we have no coherent definition or idea of what such beings would consist of. So I agree that we should wait for evidence of supernatural existences and then evaluate. So far all we have is hearsay and speculation which IMO is hardly the stuff of Gods. Under such circumstances, worshipping particular supernatural creatures as if they were real is ridiculous, dangerous and immoral. As an Ignostic I think it best not to guess at Gods whether for myself or my neighbor. I think giving to charity is a much higher calling than giving to the church.

[jamesmorlock]

Who said it was better?

So the possibilities are 1. Making stuff up, or 2. Admitting the truth, and you're asking why they can't co-exist.

[Flail]

There are trillions of trillions of trillions of events we can examine, and all turn out to be natural, and none turn out to be supernatural.

Consider that by definition everything we can examine is natural. If so, what you are saying is tautological, jejune.
Perhaps there are gajabazillion events that we cannot examine, ever. These might be nautural in a diferent dimension, or we might call them supernatural. The meaning of supernatural is unclear. But what you're doing is sort of saying all we can see is cats and none of the cats are not cats. Therefore everything must be cats. That's not kosher thinking. It only means we don't have the means to look at not-cats, and if we wish to, and we do indeed, it's about imagination and discernement and possibility, especially if a cat-only world gets you down.
You're equating contingent limits with possibilities. You've got a lens, it's good at looking at what you look at. It has nothing to say about other stuff.

I agree that the average magical religious fact claim is useless crap, but moving beyond that you're argument gets thin and circular.

I agree with what you say here. Cat-only thinking is as mind numbingly simplistic as Bible-God thinking. We must remain open to all possibility. Which is why I could never call myself Christian or believe in Christian 'cat-only' propaganda or delve into its ritual practices. Imagining Gods is a far different matter than worshipping One as if It were Actual and purporting that It has given us Magic or Truth. If there are Supernaturals, and I certainly agree that there could be, They would have the ability to manifest and so far they haven't, at least not to me. Perhaps They are awaiting an era wherein we have learned to deal lovingly and realistically with each other before They choose to deal with us.