How do you separate religion and the supernatural?

[Lotan]

This question was originally brought up by RevJP on the "Why Attack Christianity?" thread. Is there a religion that doesn't include supernatural elements? Could there be, or would it be considered a 'philosophy' or something else?

And, while we're at it...

Some of you may be familiar with the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge offered by magician and professional skeptic James Randi. In my opinion though, real evidence for the supernatural shouldn't come cheap, so I am prepared to offer...{doing my best Dr. Evil impression}... One BILLION Dollars (!!!!!) for incontrovertible, hard evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Don't worry, I'm good for it!
Now for a billion bucks you'll have to come up with something pretty choice. Never mind your uncle's NDE or a cheesy shaped like Benny Hinn. I want something good, like a staff that turns into a snake, or maybe a live demon. Also please avoid any quantum physics weirdness or arguments about strange events or coincidences that must be supernatural unless they are presented by a talking donkey. Best of luck to all!

[BeHereNow]

QED: Would you say then that there is science, which is not religion, and everything else, which is religion?
Historical events, for example, are not testable, therefore would be religious beliefs.

Trs: This reminds me of Zen, which supplies the “needs” of religion, but which most scholars agree is not a religion.

[QED]

QED: Would you say then that there is science, which is not religion, and everything else, which is religion?
Historical events, for example, are not testable, therefore would be religious beliefs.

You make it seem as if all historical events are untestable. If the events happened then evidence may be available. Such evidence might appear in many forms and can be tested in many ways. However, reports of events that are not supported by any evidence amount to hearsay and rarely carry any practical authority - except when excused as religion.

"The impulse for cohesion and meaning"

That's a good one. I couldn't sum up my hopes for the human race in any better words. But how ironic... Cohesion means "sticking together". What could be more divisive than hundreds of different religions offering different stories and promoting arbitrary beliefs and customs. I like to think of myself as racially and ethnically tolerant, something that goes with the territory here in the UK. But when I see schools being taken to court because Muslim girls reject the school uniform in favour of the dress-code of their faith, I can faintly see the underpinnings of xenophobia that sets many cultures against others in this extremely troubled world.

The search for "meaning" is problematic in the context of religion as well. If meaning is derived from hearsay accounts of supposed divine revelations then what practical value can it really have?

[otseng]

(From http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slock ... 0Guess.htm )

Interesting link.

Theoretically, anything—a dog, a house, a planet—can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles—one positive, one negative, so that conservation laws are not violated—are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly, typically for only 10-21 second. The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely.

And yet, we have never experienced any dogs, houses, planets popping into existence. So, theoretically, it might be possible, but realistically, it has never been observed.

Also, I have a problem extrapolating subatomic observations to the macro level. Even going just to the molecular level is a stretch. "The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely." If it is profoundly unlikely at the molecular level, what is that to say about the entire universe?

Again, at the macro level, this would violate the first law of thermo. We can perhaps say that at the subatomic level, the first law of thermo might not be valid. But what we are considering here is the entire universe, not just a subatomic particle.

Let me provide an analogy. Let's take a small ball and place it on the ground. The ball is composed of atoms that is randomly moving. The random movements of atoms would cause the ball to move. At the atomic level, we would observe the ball to "shake". But on the macro level, the ball is not moving and is consistent with the law of inertia. Now, it is theoretically possible at one time that the random movement of the atoms would all move in such a way that it would cause a net force to move the ball. Realistically of course, this has never been shown to happen. But, let's say that it can happen. Now, let's place this ball at the bottom of Mount Everest. We can say that given sufficient time, the ball could hypothecially move itself to the top of the mountain. I believe that even given one chazillion years, the ball would just sit there. Likewise, no universe is going to just pop into existence from a subatomic particle.

Now about gravity being negative energy. With the little that I understand about gravity, I thought gravity was a force, not energy. Gravity is simply a property of mass. Without any mass, there cannot exist any gravity. When you refer to gravity as energy, does that mean that gravity can exist without any mass? If gravity is energy, does that mean that mass and gravity are (theoretically) convertible to each other? What exactly does negative energy mean?

Dicke's topic was the flatness problem, one of the Big Bang theory's biggest mysteries. Dicke explained that somehow the universe seems to be extremely "flat," which means matter, velocity, and gravity all balance to put space-time precisely on the dividing line between a "closed" and an "open" geometry. In a closed universe, space-time curves back on itself, such that light beams that start out parallel will actually meet. In an open universe the beams will diverge.

I've never been convinced that the universe has a non-Euclidean geometry. If anyone have any arguments that it is non-Euclidean, please post your evidence in the Is the universe bounded or unbounded? thread.

[trs]

Trs: This reminds me of Zen, which supplies the “needs” of religion, but which most scholars agree is not a religion.

I wpud be interest in learning how most scholars arrived at such a conclusion. I suspect that it was at least influenced by a prior definition of religion.

[otseng]

I submit that philosophically speaking, if there is not belief in the supernatural, there is no religion. There is only a belief system or philosophical life style. I would think there are other elements as well for possible discussion, but this thread is about the supernatual and religion.

religion:
1a: the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of ~) b(1): the worship or service of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalised system of attitudes, beliefs and practises

To inject some humor, today's Dilbert cartoon was pretty funny:


With regards to Michael Newdow and the Unitarians, they themselves proclaim that their belief system is a religion. If they claim it for themselves, how can we say that they are not? Especially if it fits within part 2 of the M-W definition?

BTW, I've been thinking of my own definition of a religion. Here's mine so far - "A set of beliefs and practices that are subscribed to by a group of people that involves the worship of an entity (or entities)." What distinguished a philosophy from religion in my definition would be entity worshipping.

[BeHereNow]

QED: You make it seem as if all historical events are untestable. If the events happened then evidence may be available. Such evidence might appear in many forms and can be tested in many ways. However, reports of events that are not supported by any evidence amount to hearsay and rarely carry any practical authority - except when excused as religion.

Historical events are one time occurrences and therefore untestable. The fact that second hand evidence about the event is subjectively verifiable does not change this. More importantly, historical events are studied not only for the event itself, but for the causes and effects of given events. This aspect of history is based on conjectures, hearsay, faith and facts. The claim can be made that a battle was won or lost because of a particular reason. This is unfalsifiable. The dynamics of historical events can not be tested. It can only be supposed that if this or that were changed the outcome might be changed.
Of the 6000 or so years of recorded history most of what we have is hearsay. Concerning the cause and effects of these events, all is hearsay, and therefore unfalsifiable.

You have no problem using science to prove science, but when other belief systems are used to prove themselves, you cry foul.

You clearly do not understand the meaning of “The impulse for cohesion and meaning” in defining religion.
This is in reference to the individual, not society. You choose science to give cohesion and meaning to your life. Others choose religion.

~ ~ ~ ~

BHN: This reminds me of Zen, which supplies the “needs” of religion, but which most scholars agree is not a religion.
trs: I wpud be interest in learning how most scholars arrived at such a conclusion. I suspect that it was at least influenced by a prior definition of religion.

Of course there has always been a prior definition of religion, undoubtedly even before the written language. So prior influence should be expected. Is there any existing word that can be defined that is not based on prior definitions? This is how language works. Some will push the envelope and attach a changed meaning to a particular word. Sometime this catches on, sometimes it does not. Religion is one of those words whose meaning is ripe for change. I would expect the day will come when religion seldom requires the supernatural. I just don't think we have gotten there yet.
Most philosophical scholars agree that religion includes the supernatural. Since Zen does not require or recognize the supernatural, it is not a religion philosophically speaking. It lacks other characteristics attributed to religions. Some authors even make the claim that it lacks the finer points necessary for a philosophy. Of course if we take the broadest meaning of religion, and include such things as environmentalism, and Atheism, Zen will have to be included as well.

~ ~ ~ ~

Otseng: With regards to Michael Newdow and the Unitarians, they themselves proclaim that their belief system is a religion. If they claim it for themselves, how can we say that they are not? Especially if it fits within part 2 of the M-W definition?

The same way we can say a child molester who claims he is benevolent to children is mistaken.

BTW, I've been thinking of my own definition of a religion. Here's mine so far - "A set of beliefs and practices that are subscribed to by a group of people that involves the worship of an entity (or entities)." What distinguished a philosophy from religion in my definition would be entity worshipping.

I like this. I’m not sure that a single individual can’t form his own religion, but that is a minor point.

[QED]

QED: You make it seem as if all historical events are untestable. If the events happened then evidence may be available. Such evidence might appear in many forms and can be tested in many ways. However, reports of events that are not supported by any evidence amount to hearsay and rarely carry any practical authority - except when excused as religion.

Historical events are one time occurrences and therefore untestable. The fact that second hand evidence about the event is subjectively verifiable does not change this.

I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion. Historical events can easily be disproved by contradictory evidence. Archaeologists frequently unearth this sort of evidence. Very little in this world can be granted the status of absolute proof, but many things can be disproved. Science establishes theories as definitely wrong, or probably right. Such conclusions can only be drawn however when a postulate presents opportunities to be falsified. Much of recorded history is amenable to this approach. Very few recorded events happen in isolation which provides an opportunity for corroborating different strands of evidence.

More importantly, historical events are studied not only for the event itself, but for the causes and effects of given events. This aspect of history is based on conjectures, hearsay, faith and facts. The claim can be made that a battle was won or lost because of a particular reason. This is unfalsifiable. The dynamics of historical events can not be tested. It can only be supposed that if this or that were changed the outcome might be changed.
Of the 6000 or so years of recorded history most of what we have is hearsay. Concerning the cause and effects of these events, all is hearsay, and therefore unfalsifiable.

How do you arrive at such a heavy bias towards recorded history being mere hearsay? I would have though that most historians draw their inferences from direct observations of general archaeology which relate different civilizations within a timeline. Biologists can extract reliable data spanning millions of years using similar methods. Hearsay only enters the frame when we are studying indirect, isolated, observations that are contemporary with, or follow on at a later date from reported events.

You have no problem using science to prove science, but when other belief systems are used to prove themselves, you cry foul.

I really don't understand what you mean when you refer to using science to prove science. You will need to explain it in more detail if I am to understand this.

You clearly do not understand the meaning of “The impulse for cohesion and meaning” in defining religion.
This is in reference to the individual, not society. You choose science to give cohesion and meaning to your life. Others choose religion.

What is it that distinguishes the impulse within an individual from the collective impulse within a society? In any case the concept of cohesion, or sticking together in an individual is something that could do with a little more explanation if that's what you refer to.

From the look of it It's quite possible that I hit a nerve in you when I spoke of the irony that I could see in that definition. There seems to be a feeling among many people here that there is a perfect symmetry between science and religion - A belives in the answers offered by science, B believes in the answers offered by some bible or other. But the methods of enquiry differ and science has a distinct advantage when it comes to determining facts:

This is because the scientific approach is framed in such a way as to be subject to falsification. It can never know when it is absolutely right, only when wrong. So while not necessarily knowing that it has ever reached the truth, it may indeed have already arrived. No harm is done by such over-reaching, what counts is that the conclusions will remain the same in the absence of contradictory data (which by definition will never emerge once an objective truth has actually been arrived at - even if you argue that there is no such thing as an objective truth!).

It is as though a systematic 'sweep' for a conclusion has been made through the enormous space of 'possibilities' - a sweep that automatically stops at the proper conclusion upon encountering an objective truth even though we may errantly continue to consider more possibilities.

Contrast this with the use of faith (in all its forms) to furnish us with facts - while faith might stumble across the odd truth by accident now and then, it has no feedback mechanism to tell it when it is wrong (as if it would listen anyway!) Thus many a false conclusion will inevitably be arrived at - given the vast number of possibilities to choose from.

Given enough time then, science is capable of gradually revealing a coherent and accurate interpretation of all the underlying objective truths that embody our universe. Whereas revelations arising through the channel of faith alone will become more and more incoherent with the passage of time.

Supporting evidence for this analysis can already be found in the consistency of information contained in students textbooks world-wide. All the books covering maths and science will contain the same information no matter where in the world they come from. Quite a different picture will emerge from Religious Education textbooks. To me this is represents a very clear asymmetry.

[BeHereNow]

QED: There seems to be a feeling among many people here that there is a perfect symmetry between science and religion - A belives in the answers offered by science, B believes in the answers offered by some bible or other. But the methods of enquiry differ and science has a distinct advantage when it comes to determining facts.

I agree with this 100%.
You and I differ, but I believe only slightly, but this slight difference is causing problems.

I guess I’m a hybrid around here.
I don’t believe in the supernatural, but I do believe in what borders on the mystical. I say it boarders on the mystical because it is not supernatural, but does transcend traditional understanding. It is mystical in the weakest sense.
By supernatural I mean something that defies the natural laws of science or physics. Spirits, ghosts, gods, demons and such. I allow for a Deist creator that does not intervene in our daily lives. I require an Eternal Oneness which unites all that is.
Science is excellent at determining facts. It also does well at connecting these facts for material understanding. As to the origins of the universe, science is in the process of properly describing how things work. Traditional religions on the other hand have metaphoric explanations which are sufficient for general human happiness but do not serve the same purpose as scientific explanations.

Human understanding can occur in at least two manners.
At the basic level reason and logic are sure paths to understanding. The mind is able, on its own and with the help of its creations, to use the scientific method to decipher a scientific truth, which closely resembles reality.
At another level, the trained mind is capable of much more. It can attain an intuitive understanding of reality. In general the understanding gained is not valued by science. Science measures and quantifies. Intuitive understanding simply understands. There is a leap from a general awareness, to an understanding. There may be much studying and observing, but the scientific method is not employed.

I believe Native Americans had an intuitive understanding of their ecosystem. The shamans “communed” with nature. They understood it without measuring and quantifying it. They “read the signs”, not with charts and graphs but by simply living. They understood their place in the universe without understanding the scientific workings that described them and the universe.
The scientific advances we enjoy have not made humans any happier, and isn’t that what life is about. I’m not saying scientific advances are bad, or have impeded human happiness, I’m just saying we do not live a superior life because of science. Science is part of progress, and progress is part of the human endeavor. Science is an indispensable part of human life.

Science and religion are not two faces of the same thing. Each tries to improve the life of man, so they do butt heads.
Traditional religion is much more biased than science.
Science sometimes sees itself as being more important than religion. This reveals its bias.

The logical and reasoning capabilities of man are represented by science.
The intuitive capabilities of man are represented by philosophy. Under the broad umbrella of philosophy are philosophers, shamans, priests, monks and such.
Western society is a strong supporter of logic and science.
Eastern society traditionally has been much more intuitive. This is rapidly changing as the world becomes westernized.

When I say it is the shamans and priests that can have an intuitive grasp of reality, I do not mean the local preacher or priest understands how the world was created. It is more likely they have dogma than truth.

Scientists are right on top of it all. We might say they can’t see the forest for the trees.

Certain (few) mystical shaman/philosophers are able to detach themselves from being, and become one with existence. If I say they have an understanding of the reality of a tree, I do not mean they have scientific knowledge of treeness. In many ways the understanding they have is of little value. By scientific terms, their understanding is child-like. It is pure and simple, unhindered by preconceived notions. Science wants to put value on the understanding. The pure philosopher simply wants the understanding, without motives.

In the end, the reason for human existence is human existence.
In a nutshell it is human happiness (whatever that might mean) that is important.
When it comes to human happiness, science is no better than religion. Good religion is better than bad science, good science is better than bad religion. We happen to live in a time when science is good and religion is misdirected, but there is no guarantee it will always be like this. Another time, another place, the tables might be turned.
When science follows truth, happiness should follow.
When religion follows truth, happiness should follow.
Balance is possible.

We would agree that traditional religion has felt a need to dictate scientific truth in order to maintain what it sees as religious truth, and it has a history of not being successful, and having to change its views to match science.
You feel because of this, religion is totally discredited. I feel religion is suspect, but still valid.

Beyond that, it is not religion in the traditional sense that I advocate. It is in the family, so I will support it to a certain extent.
Whereas science sticks with science, with no objective to discredit religion, religion is offended to be told it is wrong, and fights science to hold onto old “truths’ which are not valid. Science tends to be flexible, not so with traditional religion.

But there is a special class of beliefs that presents no opportunity for testing and as such are unfalsifiable. As a result no conclusion can be drawn over their status in truth. I would suggest that religion is defined by the adherence to any such belief.

I believe humans are capable of experiences which can not be tested. This is due in part to the limitation of language. These experiences are part of the natural world as there is no separate spiritual world. The mind can go beyond a subjective view of reality and unite observer and observed. The understanding is beyond words and therefore not testable and highly suspect. Those of us who believe this do not need to convince others we are right. It is not necessary that they agree with us. It is not even necessary that they understand us.

[QED]

QED: There seems to be a feeling among many people here that there is a perfect symmetry between science and religion - A belives in the answers offered by science, B believes in the answers offered by some bible or other. But the methods of enquiry differ and science has a distinct advantage when it comes to determining facts.

I agree with this 100%.
You and I differ, but I believe only slightly, but this slight difference is causing problems.

I guess I’m a hybrid around here.
I don’t believe in the supernatural, but I do believe in what borders on the mystical. I say it boarders on the mystical because it is not supernatural, but does transcend traditional understanding. It is mystical in the weakest sense.
By supernatural I mean something that defies the natural laws of science or physics. Spirits, ghosts, gods, demons and such. I allow for a Deist creator that does not intervene in our daily lives. I require an Eternal Oneness which unites all that is.

OK, I want to address this straight off. We are all aware of the feelings you mention regarding the supernatural, they appear to be feelings that are hard-wired into our brains and can have a powerful effect on our emotions and behavior... but does this mean that the supernatural really exists outside of our minds?

For example, I consider myself to be more immune to superstition than the average Joe, but I can't help but be nervous walking through a cemetery in the dark. I know there are probably more dead things lying under the grass in my garden but it still spooks me. What am I fearing? Everything - and nothing. It is my imagination that fills the darkness with goodness knows what. Now is this experience "real"? You might argue that indeed it is some persistent property of the long-since dead that is reaching out to me on a supernatural level, but a simple bind-test can dispell this notion. If unbeknown to me the cemetery was a movie-prop do you think I would walk through it without a care in the world?

This same reasoning covers the entire panoply of ghost stories and paranormal activity - all of which represent a specific operation of the mind. In the absence of technical knowledge about consciousness there is a classic example of people utterly convinced of engagement with the supernatural - this happens when semi-awaking from sleep while the muscles in your body are still semi-paralysed (read about it here if you are unfamiliar with this phenomenon). As it happens, I suffered from this allot a few years ago and I have to admit that it was very scary the first time it happened!

Of course I appreciate that what I have said here relates to a subset of the supernatural, but the fact remains that our minds are inherently susceptible to conjuring up a form of virtual reality which expresses some instinct we all seem to share. So where does this instinct come from? Well nobody has actually ever been taken by demons while walking through a graveyard, or while sleeping in their bed at night - so we can rule-out naturally selective pressures acting at the level of real human survival. But what pressures might there be to remove an inherited 'notion' - for that is what we are considering here. Considering the length of time we have existed as a species without the sort of information I mention here, little wonder then that we would develop superstitions to account for our pre-dispositions.

[BeHereNow]

I have the same problems with “supernatural happenings” that you do. If real, we should have more “evidence”. I can not accept biblical miracles as reality, merely a symbolic attempt to justify a personal deity.

So where does this instinct come from? Well nobody has actually ever been taken by demons while walking through a graveyard, or while sleeping in their bed at night - so we can rule-out naturally selective pressures acting at the level of real human survival.

Isn’t this an example of fear of the unknown, which could easily be a natural selection factor.
There is of course the intellectual level, where the mind should be able to say “If it were daylight, I would have no fear, the darkness does not change things”, but there is the emotional level which can not see into the darkness. Even if it were daylight, the mind might (subconsciously) dwell on the unknown of death that a cemetery represents. It is a stark reminder of the ultimate unknown. Symbols have powerful effects on the intellect as well as the emotions.
Jumping off a high dive for the first time we know we are about to experience something new, something unknown. This usually causes a fear which lessens with each successive jump. We become desensitized to anticipating the unknown as it becomes known. Risk takers turn this fear into pleasure (endomorphs).
We have a similar “fear” of eating strange or exotic foods the first time. It does help if we see others eating and enjoying, but mind over matter may not kick in until we actual experience the taste ourselves. Again I see what might be an irrational fear (are toasted maggots really going to hurt me?) as a healthy instinct for species preservation.