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?

[jamesmorlock]

We tend to take natural explanations over supernatural ones in our everyday lives.

Some kid:

1) I saw a spider
or
2) I saw the boogeyman

The kid could be lying in either situation, but which one are we more likely to believe?

And yet if the kid claimed "I saw an angel", he's applauded and circulated through a network of churches to give his uplifting testimony to the congregations full of eagerly credulous people. Books and articles are written about his experience and circulated worldwide - all the while his story gets more fantastic every time he tells it, and he soaks up all the positive attention like a sponge.

I see no reason to give religious claims a special exemption.

[Mithrae]

We tend to take natural explanations over supernatural ones in our everyday lives.

Some kid:

1) I saw a spider
or
2) I saw the boogeyman

The kid could be lying in either situation, but which one are we more likely to believe?

Odds are that a lot of the time the kid did 'see' a boogeyman - that nasty pile of toys in the dark closet or the sinister shadows of a tree outside. That'd be my first point from above, that our minds and imaginations can often play tricks on us. Heck, as an adult I've occasionally 'heard' quiet footsteps through the house at night and at times have even got up to make sure it's just my imagination. Maybe one time it won't be

And yet if the kid claimed "I saw an angel", he's applauded and circulated through a network of churches to give his uplifting testimony to the congregations full of eagerly credulous people. Books and articles are written about his experience and circulated worldwide - all the while his story gets more fantastic every time he tells it, and he soaks up all the positive attention like a sponge.

I see no reason to give religious claims a special exemption.

Agreed - though let's not forget those who make a quick buck selling the books and booking appearances.

My post isn't directed specifically at religious supernatural claims, and certainly not at Christian claims particularly. I've never seen anything supernatural, and the only two anecdotes from folk I've known that I'd even give a third thought to have more of a Buddhist and Neo-pagan flavour to them. But the 'supernatural' essentially means anything sufficiently outside the range of common or explainable human experience. My question could just as easily include things like alien abductions.

In fact having given it some thought, if anyone's got the time and inclination, I'd actually be quite interested in specific answers regarding any of these:
- Acupuncture & acupressure
- Alien abductions/sightings
- Alien origins/seeding/ancient sightings
- Angels & demons
- Astrology
- Atlantis theories
- Clairvoyance (seeing from afar)
- Cryptozoology (Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Yeti etc.)
- Ghosts & spirits
- Healing through scents, crystals etc.
- Laying on hands (eg. reiki)
- Miracles (performed - eg. Jesus, Sri Sathya Sai Baba)
- Miracles (fortuitous - eg. manna in the desert, 9/11 miracles)
- Predictive prophecy
- Telepathy
- Telekinesis
- Other???

Obviously not a perfect list, but I think claims made in all of those categories fit the bill of being sufficiently outside the range of common or explainable human experience. So should we dismiss all of these as essentially having a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent probability? Should there be/is there a single consistent approach to the whole list at all?

Ultimately my question is about the presuppositions, methodology and criteria for reasonable evidence (epistemology) with which we do or should approach extraordinary/supernatural claims. Particularly with regard to claims we haven't yet encountered/investigated; we've all probably got a fairly standard response in store for kids with boogeyman sightings or a Messiah who walks on water.

But perhaps a list of specific supernatural categories will help with my broader enquiry

[Furrowed Brow]

- 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*

If I could add to your list

• - interpretation of experience in light of a supernatural narrative sustained by poor methodology like confirmation bias. Put simply: folk deceive themselves.
  - Lack of falsification and evasive techniques to preserve the favoured narrative. Put simply: folk work hard to deceive themselves.
  - Folk love a good story

These three factors weigh on me the most heavily when asked to consider stuff. The other things you mention play a role but these three loom large in my mind.

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.

The overriding point that should guide how we think about this: the supernatural claim is itself an assessment of some data or lack of data, we evaluate how that assessment is performed. So I'd also ask what is the merit of a claim that is not open for falsification and drawn from human narrative as are nearly all supernatural claims. What value do we give the methodology that sustains supernatural claims.

Let’s say an object mysteriously flies across the room before your eyes. Someone says it was the action of an poltergeist and someone else – me - says no it was definitely an invisible dragon from another dimension. Let’s say you weigh all the evidence and do a thorough investigation but cannot prove or disprove the poltergeist claim or the invisible dragon claim. Which one is more probable? Does en established cultural mythology for ghosts and poltergeists make them any more probable than me just now inventing the idea of an invisible dragon from another dimension. I’d say the answer is no. The wrong way to think about stuff is maybe think because folk have a history of thinking along certain lines there is more likely something in it. If we cannot get either explanation to work they are equally meaningless. There is no more or less to claiming an invisible dragon from another dimension as there is in trying to invoke a poltergeist.

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.

We do not know enough about the universe for sure, but we do know enough about human frailties. We lie, cheat, fantasize, conspire, make mistakes, misinterpret, delude ourselves etc and all these frailties are overwhelmingly more likely an explanation for any supernatural claim.

Let me grade the list you provided as Bad Science. I’ll give them a BS rating out of 10. A score below 5 is credible, 5 is on the fence, and over 5 is not credible.

- Acupuncture & acupressure

BS rating 6. Seems to provide some tangible short term pain relief but not sure if the effect is any greater than a placebo, or that the traditional explanation is anything like accurate.

- Laying on hands (eg. reiki)
- Healing through scents, crystals etc.

BS rating 10. Placebo effect and self deception, confirmation bias etc.

Atlantis theories

BS rating 7. Graham Hancock is the fellah I am familiar with and I think his ideas and research is flimsy dot joining.

- Predictive prophecy

BS rating 10. Retrofitting data to rationalise the prophecy. Prophecies like say “one day there will be nothing left of this temple� are sure to come true. When it happens we fit the data to the prophecy. It is a feeble way of analysing data.

- Alien abductions/sightings
- Alien origins/seeding/ancient sightings
- Angels & demons
- Ghosts & spirits

BS rating 10. I have spent more time than I care to admit looking at some of this stuff and it is just pure BS.

- Astrology

BS rating 10. Classic example of confirmation bias and data retrofitted to nonspecific claims.

- Cryptozoology (Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Yeti etc.)

BS rating 5-9 depending on what we are talking about. Bigfoot is 10, Yeti 6, Lochness Monster 10. Lochness for example has hardly any fish in it and is unable to sustain a large fish/reptile/mammal. I think some expedition to Nepal came back with some weird DNA, which is why I give the Yeti 6.

- Miracles (performed - eg. Jesus, Sri Sathya Sai Baba)
- Miracles (fortuitous - eg. manna in the desert, 9/11 miracles)

BS rating 10. these tells us everything more about how humans tend to think and interpret data than they do about how the world works.

- Clairvoyance (seeing from afar)
- Telepathy
- Telekinesis

BS rating 8. These have systematically shown to be junk but at least the claims are open to be tested. We now have stuff like robotic arms controlled by the brain, and brains scanning technique means we are getting closer to reading folk’s thoughts. But as to individuals making such claims. No. It is a lot of BS.

[Mithrae]

- 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*

If I could add to your list

• - interpretation of experience in light of a supernatural narrative sustained by poor methodology like confirmation bias. Put simply: folk deceive themselves.
  - Lack of falsification and evasive techniques to preserve the favoured narrative. Put simply: folk work hard to deceive themselves.
  - Folk love a good story

These three factors weigh on me the most heavily when asked to consider stuff. The other things you mention play a role but these three loom large in my mind.

I would agree on all points, though they wouldn't quite fit in my list of things that most folk might agree with.

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.

The overriding point that should guide how we think about this: the supernatural claim is itself an assessment of some data or lack of data, we evaluate how that assessment is performed. So I'd also ask what is the merit of a claim that is not open for falsification and drawn from human narrative as are nearly all supernatural claims. What value do we give the methodology that sustains supernatural claims.

Let’s say an object mysteriously flies across the room before your eyes. Someone says it was the action of an poltergeist and someone else – me - says no it was definitely an invisible dragon from another dimension. Let’s say you weigh all the evidence and do a thorough investigation but cannot prove or disprove the poltergeist claim or the invisible dragon claim. Which one is more probable? Does en established cultural mythology for ghosts and poltergeists make them any more probable than me just now inventing the idea of an invisible dragon from another dimension. I’d say the answer is no. The wrong way to think about stuff is maybe think because folk have a history of thinking along certain lines there is more likely something in it. If we cannot get either explanation to work they are equally meaningless. There is no more or less to claiming an invisible dragon from another dimension as there is in trying to invoke a poltergeist.

Well since you'd consider time travel marginally more probable than the 'supernatural,' surely it'd be consistent to consider the poltergeist marginally more probable than the invisible dimension-jumping dragon?

In fact I should point out that since we necessarily perceive reality in terms of 'self' and 'other,' we essentially hold a dualist perspective from childhood. Combined with an instinctive fear of death, a concept of an 'immortal soul' is almost part of human nature. While the idea of a ghost hanging around and being able to move physical objects goes beyond that somewhat, the comparison with a newly-invented invisible dimension-jumping dragon is hardly equitable.

Of course, that's part of the purpose of my enquiry; why do we believe as we do? I'd say that all else being equal it's considerably more rational to believe in the poltergeist than the dragon. In the grand scheme of things, you'd correctly point out that neither has any particular merit over the other since a preference for one is based only on our perspective as human beings. But then, in the grand scheme of things, what do we know which isn't based on our perspective as human beings?

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.

We do not know enough about the universe for sure, but we do know enough about human frailties. We lie, cheat, fantasize, conspire, make mistakes, misinterpret, delude ourselves etc and all these frailties are overwhelmingly more likely an explanation for any supernatural claim.

But if a supernatural claim is being evaluated by comparable criteria as claims in, say sociology or history, and weighed against higher standards, are those 'human frailties' a valid objection? They'll come into play in any endeavour we pursue. Maths and logic are the only disciplines which spring to mind as almost completely objective, though obviously even there we can make mistakes. Assuming a similar or slightly better quality & quantity of evidence for a supernatural claim as for a natural one, would you hold to your statement that "these frailties are overwhelmingly more likely an explanation for any supernatural claim"?

Let me grade the list you provided as Bad Science. I’ll give them a BS rating out of 10. A score below 5 is credible, 5 is on the fence, and over 5 is not credible.

- Acupuncture & acupressure

BS rating 6. Seems to provide some tangible short term pain relief but not sure if the effect is any greater than a placebo, or that the traditional explanation is anything like accurate.

- Laying on hands (eg. reiki)
- Healing through scents, crystals etc.

BS rating 10. Placebo effect and self deception, confirmation bias etc.

Atlantis theories

BS rating 7. Graham Hancock is the fellah I am familiar with and I think his ideas and research is flimsy dot joining.

- Predictive prophecy

BS rating 10. Retrofitting data to rationalise the prophecy. Prophecies like say “one day there will be nothing left of this temple� are sure to come true. When it happens we fit the data to the prophecy. It is a feeble way of analysing data.

- Alien abductions/sightings
- Alien origins/seeding/ancient sightings
- Angels & demons
- Ghosts & spirits

BS rating 10. I have spent more time than I care to admit looking at some of this stuff and it is just pure BS.

- Astrology

BS rating 10. Classic example of confirmation bias and data retrofitted to nonspecific claims.

- Cryptozoology (Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Yeti etc.)

BS rating 5-9 depending on what we are talking about. Bigfoot is 10, Yeti 6, Lochness Monster 10. Lochness for example has hardly any fish in it and is unable to sustain a large fish/reptile/mammal. I think some expedition to Nepal came back with some weird DNA, which is why I give the Yeti 6.

- Miracles (performed - eg. Jesus, Sri Sathya Sai Baba)
- Miracles (fortuitous - eg. manna in the desert, 9/11 miracles)

BS rating 10. these tells us everything more about how humans tend to think and interpret data than they do about how the world works.

- Clairvoyance (seeing from afar)
- Telepathy
- Telekinesis

BS rating 8. These have systematically shown to be junk but at least the claims are open to be tested. We now have stuff like robotic arms controlled by the brain, and brains scanning technique means we are getting closer to reading folk’s thoughts. But as to individuals making such claims. No. It is a lot of BS.

Thankyou for the effort and reasoning Just to clarify, would it be fair to guess that the existence of the Statue of Liberty would get a BS rating of 1, the Gallic conquests of Julius Caesar a BS rating of around 3 and the existence of Jesus or Socrates a BS rating of 4 or 5?

If so, my main qualm would be that you seem to have a lot of 10s. Not really unexpected considering your previous posts I guess, I just find it strange that sightings or abductions by extra-terrestrial beings seems as unlikely to you as the notion that the stars influence our destiny or (presumably) an invisible dimension-jumping dragon. 1-10 is a fairly limited scale, admittedly - especially when you essentially confined yourself to 6-10. I appreciate the reasoning, but question the results

[Furrowed Brow]

Well since you'd consider time travel marginally more probable than the 'supernatural,'

Well the reason for favouring time travel over the “supernatural� is that current advanced science regarding quantum physics and relativity may be wrong and things like time travel or faster and light travel may – though very unlikely turn out to be possible. For the supernatural claim to be true our very basic science has to be badly and widely wrong on a day to day level, stuff like Newtonian mechanics and F = Mass x acceleration. There is just less chance of this. Moreover for the supernatural claim to be true far more mundane answers have to be false. And wild eyed billionaire conspiracies are still more plausible than inventing whole new side of nature. Then there is the point that the bad billionaire is a proposition that stands a chance of being tested and falsified. It is wacky but it still potentially testable.

surely it'd be consistent to consider the poltergeist marginally more probable than the invisible dimension-jumping dragon?

I have no reason to think the poltergeist is more likely – even marginally – than some idea I invented 5 seconds ago. Put it the other way around, say everyone believed in invisible dragons, and I just invented the idea of the poltergeist you would be asking the question the other way around. Just because a bunch of people have a history of thinking a certain way does not give their idea any greater credibility than one thought up 5 seconds ago. All we do when choosing one over the other is reveal our cultural bias. This says nothing about actual likelihoods.

In fact I should point out that since we necessarily perceive reality in terms of 'self' and 'other,' we essentially hold a dualist perspective from childhood. Combined with an instinctive fear of death, a concept of an 'immortal soul' is almost part of human nature. While the idea of a ghost hanging around and being able to move physical objects goes beyond that somewhat, the comparison with a newly-invented invisible dimension-jumping dragon is hardly equitable.

As an explanation of the data it is equitable, as an explanation rooted in ways some folk prefer to think it is not.

Of course, that's part of the purpose of my enquiry; why do we believe as we do?

Mostly it has little to do with the data and drawing an objective analysis based on the data.

I'd say that all else being equal it's considerably more rational to believe in the poltergeist than the dragon.

Even if you are right and the idea of ghosts is rooted deep in the human psyche, that explains why we would think of a ghost as an answer. In no way does it make a ghost more rational. If you said more of a human explanation I could agree. Really your argument shows a ghost if anything is more irrational because it the idea is rooted in our fears. Without greater motivation my invisible dragon is arbitrary, but a ghost on your account is a human tic.

In the grand scheme of things, you'd correctly point out that neither has any particular merit over the other since a preference for one is based only on our perspective as human beings. But then, in the grand scheme of things, what do we know which isn't based on our perspective as human beings?

Not much. All we can do is run with the stuff we can test and falsify.

But if a supernatural claim is being evaluated by comparable criteria as claims in, say sociology or history, and weighed against higher standards, are those 'human frailties' a valid objection? They'll come into play in any endeavour we pursue. Maths and logic are the only disciplines which spring to mind as almost completely objective, though obviously even there we can make mistakes. Assuming a similar or slightly better quality & quantity of evidence for a supernatural claim as for a natural one, would you hold to your statement that "these frailties are overwhelmingly more likely an explanation for any supernatural claim"?

Well I guess my whole thrust is that the supernatural is the product of us humans. So I’d put it this way: given Data D and explanation x and explanation y, and all things otherwise being equal then if there is more evidence for x than y, it would be rational to favour x. Even if x turns out to be a supernatural claim. I think that is what you are driving at. My point is that is not how supernatural explanations work. All things are never equal because of the poor critical methodology and biases that go with such claims. On thisview the supernatural is clearly a product of our very human critical frailties, psyche and cultural narratives, and thus it is a problem of social psychology and not a problem of ontology. If this is wrong then you are right. We can try and beat out why we hold different views but I think we need to be clear that we are placing the supernatural in different methodological categories. Natural vs Supernatural is not just a matter of reaching different and opposing conclusions, they require we think in different ways to be able to entertain them.

Thankyou for the effort and reasoning Just to clarify, would it be fair to guess that the existence of the Statue of Liberty would get a BS rating of 1, the Gallic conquests of Julius Caesar a BS rating of around 3 and the existence of Jesus or Socrates a BS rating of 4 or 5?

That is about spot on.

If so, my main qualm would be that you seem to have a lot of 10s. Not really unexpected considering your previous posts I guess, I just find it strange that sightings or abductions by extra-terrestrial beings seems as unlikely to you as the notion that the stars influence our destiny or (presumably) an invisible dimension-jumping dragon.

Well I did not introduce fractions, and maybe I was in a harsh mood, and the BS score is not fully indicative of improbability. It is more aimed at poor critical methodology. I think astrology is just silly and is as silly as our lives being manipulated by invisible dragons. Maybe I should give it 11 out of 10. Alien abductions is something else. Once we can get over that it is overwhelmingly more likely aliens are not here it raises issues regarding human psychology and the narratives we spin. I think they reveal something quite telling about us. If you take my cynical view of life check out all the videos on youtube, and the numerous folk claiming to be abducted, and some building their lives around that belief, you end up with a complex and at times scary view of humanity. It is really very easy for me to believe they are lying, or deluded, just as it is very easy for me to believe some lying or deluded fellahs walked out of Judea a couple of thousand years ago. These are extreme cases. I think we all do this in less obvious ways everyday. Including me. Aliens and miracles are just extremes on a spectrum of human delusions. I think the complexities this view of life throws up is why many folk prefer to believe the simplistic answers. It actually makes life simpler to understand life on those terms. But the problem with holding up aliens as the explanation is it gets in the way of gaining some real insight into how humans work out their problems. The same goes for the supernatural as an answer.

1-10 is a fairly limited scale, admittedly - especially when you essentially confined yourself to 6-10. I appreciate the reasoning, but question the results

Well it was hardly scientific and I used a broad brush.

[Slopeshoulder]

I'm not sure what supernatural actually means, but it seems to have something to do with "existence" outside of empirical observation and materiality.

To me it all comes down the the strengths and limits of empiricism. Empiricism goes a LONG way to save us from false accounts, mistaken memory, wishful thinking, magical thinking, superstition, mass delusion, etc.

But empiricism is limited by the limits of its inputs, namely humans.

So I tend not to believe flagrent cliams put forth my some less than rational people.
But if there are 7 dimensions I can't sense beyond the 4 I can, and my senses are flawed, and measurement breaks down and knowledge and logic and meaning all have limits, then I remain open to the idea that there is more to it out there.

And I find that when this is combined with psychology, art, and ethics, the religions at their best are good places to find meaning while living in a state of unknowing.
IMO materialist reductionists and magical biblicists both lose the plot, albeit in different ways.

[Goat]

I'm not sure what supernatural actually means, but it seems to have something to do with "existence" outside of empirical observation and materiality.

To me it all comes down the the strengths and limits of empiricism. Empiricism goes a LONG way to save us from false accounts, mistaken memory, wishful thinking, magical thinking, superstition, mass delusion, etc.

But empiricism is limited by the limits of its inputs, namely humans.

So I tend not to believe flagrent cliams put forth my some less than rational people.
But if there are 7 dimensions I can't sense beyond the 4 I can, and my senses are flawed, and measurement breaks down and knowledge and logic and meaning all have limits, then I remain open to the idea that there is more to it out there.

And I find that when this is combined with psychology, art, and ethics, the religions at their best are good places to find meaning while living in a state of unknowing.
IMO materialist reductionists and magical biblicists both lose the plot, albeit in different ways.

Since we are all human, when someone tries to go 'beyond the limits of it's inputs, namely human', that's when we get the magical thinking, superstition, mass delusion , etc etc etc.

Combining psychology, art, ethics and religions still does not get rid of the fact we are all human, and we have to come from that perspective.. it does not go beyond the human foibles.

[Mithrae]

I'm not sure what supernatural actually means, but it seems to have something to do with "existence" outside of empirical observation and materiality.

To me it all comes down the the strengths and limits of empiricism. Empiricism goes a LONG way to save us from false accounts, mistaken memory, wishful thinking, magical thinking, superstition, mass delusion, etc.

If by 'empiricism' you mean consistent and/or repeatable observations, I'd agree with both paragraphs. Googling empiricism just now I came across this article; I haven't read it yet, but for anyone interested it seems an interesting distinction to consider between empiricism and rationalism. It certainly has some bearing on the broader topic of how and why we believe/know as we do.

But if there are 7 dimensions I can't sense beyond the 4 I can, and my senses are flawed, and measurement breaks down and knowledge and logic and meaning all have limits, then I remain open to the idea that there is more to it out there.

And I find that when this is combined with psychology, art, and ethics, the religions at their best are good places to find meaning while living in a state of unknowing.
IMO materialist reductionists and magical biblicists both lose the plot, albeit in different ways.

I certainly recognise the value of finding meaning in some (relatively) rational manner, but is it true that materialist reductionists "lose the plot"? Unless they concede similar validity for tales in other cultures, I'd agree that magical biblicists hold an ultimately untenable position. But from what I've gathered it seems that materialist views are fundamentally based simply on an epistemological stance; of accepting only what is observed or deduced from verifiable observations. (The same might be said of other monisms, with roughly comparable validity.) Certainly such a view might lose a lot of the meaning/wonder/magic/romance which less constrained thinking can allow, but is it really comparable to the inconsistencies of fundamentalist religious thought?

--

Since we are all human, when someone tries to go 'beyond the limits of it's inputs, namely human', that's when we get the magical thinking, superstition, mass delusion , etc etc etc.

Combining psychology, art, ethics and religions still does not get rid of the fact we are all human, and we have to come from that perspective.. it does not go beyond the human foibles.

I'd suggest that including psychology, art, ethics and religions (plus sociology and evolutionary biology) in our evaluation of the 'big picture' is necessary to appreciate the fact that we are all human and its attendant perspectives and foibles.

As I've hinted elsewhere, after I divested myself largely of the 'magical thinking' from my Christian upbringing (age 20), I followed the logical course in divesting myself of the concepts of 'morals' and 'love' and, ultimately, any meaning or purpose beyond biological imperatives of survival and reproduction. That was followed by a period of depression and ongoing alcoholism, but I'd still challenge any atheist to find a fault in that chain of reasoning. That's no small part of the reason why I often argue in favour of our psychological needs for belief, meaning or purpose (plus a certain enjoyment from arguing against some more extreme/illogical presentations of misotheism).

I think it's quite healthy to recognise that our genuine knowledge is rather limited, and that an acknowledged self-imposed restraint on 'belief' to that which is demonstrable is not intrinsically superior to acknowledged self-indulgent 'belief' in that which makes life more meaningful.



Furrowed it's passing 5am for me now, and you've acquired quite a bit of my time tonight already, so I'll get back to you later

[notachance]

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.

well, I don't see why this would be unreasonable.

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.

Hence, the chance that the next event we try to examine is supernatural and not natural, is one in a trillion trillion trillion.

The chance that Obama was born in Kenya is practically zero. Its probably one in a trillion trillion. That makes it one trillion times more likely than the supernatural.

Think about it this way: There are marbles inside a bag. Those marbles could either all be white (natural) or they could be a mixture of white and black (supernatural). We try to find out by taking marbles out of the bag and looking at them.

If you take out 10 marbles, and none of them are black, then the probability that the bag only contains white marbles is somewhat high.

If you take out 100 marbles, and still no black marbles come out, then you begin to suspect that maybe black marbles are either extremely rare, or maybe, just maybe, this is a bag containing only white marbles.

If you take out 1 trillion trillion trillion marbles and without exception they are all white... then the chance that the bag contains both black and white marbles is one in a trillion trillion trillion.

Compared to that, the notion that 9-11 was engineered by the US government, as wacky as it is, is several orders of magnitude more likely.


You know the story of the boy who cried wolf? Some religious guy says "This is supernatural" and then it turns out he was wrong. Then some other guy says "This is supernatural" and then it turns out he was wrong. And it happens millions upon millions of times. At what point do we stop taking baseless evidence-free claims seriously?