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!

[QED]

The question about inheritance of these fears is an interesting one. You are quite right to say that a fear of the unknown might present a general selective advantage and might be broad enough in scope to cover a wide range of practical situations. But having identified a mechanism (I dare not mention memes for fear of summoning the Dawkins-Devil here ) it suggests to me that such a mechanism might embrace all aspects of contemplation of the supernatural.

On entering Salisbury Cathedral one cannot but help feel an almost tangible spirit exuding from the 780 year old masonry. But it is constructed in exactly the same Purbeck limestone that my house is made from. This stone is more than 100 million years old but I don't get the same feeling when I walk through my door. But is there anything supernatural in the Cathedral? No matter how compelling it might seem, we are only talking about a man-made artifact indistinguishable from any other in the mechanical sense. Many churches in the UK have been converted into homes now and if there was any supernatural activity associated with these buildings people living and sleeping within on a daily basis would soon be reporting the fact.

Perhaps this might seem somewhat superficial to some, but the principles I'm considering apply to a great deal of human thinking and reasoning and I can see no need for an arbitrary cut-off point between such superstition and the ultimate notion of our imaginary god.

[BeHereNow]

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’m still not clear what you consider testing and unfalsifiable.
The Catholic church tests claims of miracles and the basis of sainthood.
I place these in the category of historical events which are unfalseifable. If three people saw a statute drip blood, how can we prove the event false? How is this different from having three people who saw Brutus stab Ceaser? Aren’t both events untestable?

[QED]

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’m still not clear what you consider testing and unfalsifiable.

If I say, for example, that I am followed everywhere by an invisible friend, the alleged property of invisibility renders my statement unfalsifiable. Similar properties can be ascribed to any alleged event secure in the knowledge that the proposition is immune from contradiction - e.g. god appeared to me when no one else was looking and told me he likes carrots. It takes pure faith to believe such statements.

This places propositions like these apart from descriptions of real or imaginary events which at least have the potential to leave trace evidence, (or indeed lack of evidence which could establish a negative correlation) no matter how hard that evidence might be to locate. It might seem like a subtle distinction, but within it lies the key to the classification I am proposing.

The Catholic church tests claims of miracles and the basis of sainthood.
I place these in the category of historical events which are unfalsifiable. If three people saw a statute drip blood, how can we prove the event false? How is this different from having three people who saw Brutus stab Ceaser? Aren’t both events untestable?

I would say that both these cases are amenable to an assessment of veracity given that they both report events that have the potential to be contradicted. In other words less than faith alone might be needed to accept or reject them.

[otseng]

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

Good point. Here is my updated definition - "A set of beliefs and practices that are subscribed to by one or more people that involves the worship of an entity (or entities)."

This leads to another question. Can something be considered a religion if nobody subscribes to it?

[otseng]

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?

Fascinating. Worthy of a separate thread for more discussion. If one denies the existence of the supernatural, there should be no logical reason to fear walking through a cemetary at midnight by yourself. Yet, like you mentioned, even those who supposedly reject the existence of the supernatural would have some fear of this. Could this be yet more evidence that the supernatural is possibly real?

[QED]

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?

Fascinating. Worthy of a separate thread for more discussion. If one denies the existence of the supernatural, there should be no logical reason to fear walking through a cemetary at midnight by yourself. Yet, like you mentioned, even those who supposedly reject the existence of the supernatural would have some fear of this. Could this be yet more evidence that the supernatural is possibly real?

Not at all... my example of the 'blind test' where it turns out that the cemetry is a fake (e.g unbeknown to me, I'm walking through a movie set) I know I would be just as spooked. So its not anything 'out there' that I am responding to, but something entirely in my own head.

[otseng]

Not at all... my example of the 'blind test' where it turns out that the cemetry is a fake (e.g unbeknown to me, I'm walking through a movie set) I know I would be just as spooked. So its not anything 'out there' that I am responding to, but something entirely in my own head.

My argument is not whether something is actually there or not that will pop out of the ground. My argument is analyzing the cause of the fear.

If you knew you were walking through a cemetery in a movie set, you would not have any fear. That is perfectly logical because you know there is nothing to be afraid of.

However, if you were walking through a cemetery where uncle Charlie was buried in 20 years ago, then it is not logical to have fear if one discounts the supernatural. What is there to be afraid of? Ghosts? Someone raising from the dead? A hand sticking out the ground to grab you? Werewolves to suddenly materialize? To be logically consistent, there is nothing to be afraid of. Yet, there is fear. If there was no probability of something strange happening, then there would there be no fear. So, the explanation is that the supernatural is a probable reality. Even in the mind of an atheist.

[BeHereNow]

QED: This places propositions like these apart from descriptions of real or imaginary events which at least have the potential to leave trace evidence, (or indeed lack of evidence which could establish a negative correlation) no matter how hard that evidence might be to locate. It might seem like a subtle distinction, but within it lies the key to the classification I am proposing.

But this trace evidence, what is acceptable?
If I have a near god experience, and I am convinced my experience was real, I will start with the assumption that the supernatural exists. I will “know” this, and although some of my friends tell me my experience could not have happened, other friends will tell me they had similar experiences. I will have my own firm belief that I experienced god, plus friends with similar beliefs. We may even have these experiences while we are in close proximity with each other, so that it is a shared experience. Physical evidence will show that it is likely that our experiences caused unlikely or impossible events to occur, establishing a cause and effect relationship between communing with our god and petitioning for unlikely or impossible events to occur.
We may have books with accounts of peoples through the ages experiencing similar “unnatural” or supernatural events.
If I start with the assumption that I personally had a supernatural experience, so that I “know” it is truth, I will seek out evidence to support my belief, and I will find it. What will I accept as “trace evidence”? I would think it reasonable to accept the written stories passed down by people who believed as I did. My beliefs would be reinforced on a daily basis. My group may be in the minority, but truth is not a vote by show of hands, truth comes to those who want it. Regardless of the nay-sayers, I can always find respectable, learned, good people to validate my beliefs.
It seems to me your definition needs an addition (currently unstated) assumption for it to mean what you want it to, or am I missing something?

BHN: The Catholic church tests claims of miracles and the basis of sainthood.
I place these in the category of historical events which are unfalsifiable. If three people saw a statute drip blood, how can we prove the event false? How is this different from having three people who saw Brutus stab Ceaser? Aren’t both events untestable?

QED: I would say that both these cases are amenable to an assessment of veracity given that they both report events that have the potential to be contradicted. In other words less than faith alone might be needed to accept or reject them.

You lost me somehow. “Less than faith alone might be needed” do you mean “more than faith alone might be needed”? Or is it that less trust than faith alone is needed, (knowledge requires less trust than faith) ?

~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~

otseng: Good point. Here is my updated definition - "A set of beliefs and practices that are subscribed to by one or more people that involves the worship of an entity (or entities)."

This leads to another question. Can something be considered a religion if nobody subscribes to it?

I like a definition with a pivotal point to sharply distinguish it from competing words (with similar definitions) and a broad base so that if there is disagreement, there is only one or two points in contention. I can imagine many possible definitions for religion, but all of them include “belief” and/or “practice”, and/or ”testing and unfalsifiable”. All of these terms require one or more actors. I can’t imagine an acceptable definition of religion, which allows that nobody subscribes to it.
The meaning of worship may be a point of contention.
I like something like “Showing the highest regard for, above all other concerns”.
Entity should be easy.

[QED]

My argument is not whether something is actually there or not that will pop out of the ground. My argument is analyzing the cause of the fear.

If you knew you were walking through a cemetery in a movie set, you would not have any fear. That is perfectly logical because you know there is nothing to be afraid of.

However, if you were walking through a cemetery where uncle Charlie was buried in 20 years ago, then it is not logical to have fear if one discounts the supernatural. What is there to be afraid of? Ghosts? Someone raising from the dead? A hand sticking out the ground to grab you? Werewolves to suddenly materialize? To be logically consistent, there is nothing to be afraid of. Yet, there is fear. If there was no probability of something strange happening, then there would there be no fear. So, the explanation is that the supernatural is a probable reality. Even in the mind of an atheist.

The mind of an atheist is little different to any other mind and this is where your conclusion falls over. The responses that we are talking about here represent a classic example of the hierarchical demarkation of the human brain into the three distinct areas: autonomous, limbic and conceptual functionality. In this case, the limbic part is providing us with our hard-wired responses to danger that have been inherited from past generations. So in the atheist we have a tension between the conceptual part and the inherited, limbic, which gives rise to the irrational fear.

The example of the cemetery seems to be just too powerful to get over to you the fallacy - so please consider an equivalent, but watered-down version; I can sit in my living-room and feel perfectly comfortable watching a light-entertainment program on television. Then, during the same sitting a horror movie comes on (my best candidate for this being Event Horizon - shudder!). Same room, same evening, but now if I hear an unexpected sound 'off stage' I jump! After the movie my surroundings take on a different ambience altogether. This isn't because the fictitious supernatural has somehow become real and teleported itself through my TV set, but because my limbic system has been "watching" and "listening" in on creepy happenings and is reacting accordingly.

I'm sure that this establishes beyond doubt the fact that I am not responding to any direct or present danger and that the response is due instead to an inherited, hard-wired reaction which we all posses as part of our evolved constitution. Furthermore, we know that nobody throughout history has ever actually been done-to-death in an encounter with malevolent spirits so no direct selective pressure can account for this. Instead, a general fear of the unknown is likely to be the operative and the scope of this is evidently wide enough to encompass contemplation of the supernatural.

Thus a case can be made for bundling "feelings about there being a god" in with the limbic as well. It certainly maps one-for-one with the tension between the conceptual and limbic of the examples above.

[Dilettante]

This is a pretty good thread. Unfortunately I haven't had time to read all the posts, but I'd like to make a few comments anyway:
otseng wrote:

What distinguished a philosophy from religion in my definition would be entity worshipping.

So you would not consider Buddhism a religion? (BTW, my definition of philosophy is "a quest for wisdom, virtue or happiness through rational enquiry).
As for the entities being worshipped, don't they have to be supernatural entities to qualify as religion? I've known people who were obsessively devoted to the Beatles, yet few people would call that a religion.

Also, can a mystical experience--which is always entirely subjective--be "shared" in any way, like BeHereNow wrote? Can they be accurately regarded as a source of knowledge, or rather, as a source of faith? Science and knowledge can be shared. Mystical experiences can't. The msytical experiences of my compatriots St John of the Cross and St Theresa of Avila are not identical with the mystical experiences of eastern mystics, and even those eastern mystics differ with each other about what they say they experienced.
I'll take it that we all agree that faith is not a source of knowledge, because we cannot make something true by believing it to be true.
Aquinas wrote that faith was superior to opinion because it was free from doubt. But he also said that faith was inferior to knowledge because it lacks rational justification.
QED wrote:

On entering Salisbury Cathedral one cannot but help feel an almost tangible spirit exuding from the 780 year old masonry. But it is constructed in exactly the same Purbeck limestone that my house is made from. This stone is more than 100 million years old but I don't get the same feeling when I walk through my door. But is there anything supernatural in the Cathedral?

There's a 1,100 year old Pre-Romanesque church near my home, and I've never sensed anything walking into it. It's not the age, but the way in which Gothic Cathedrals are built that accounts for that feeling of other-worldliness. The light filtering through the massive stained glass windows (so that it seems as if there were no walls), the nervatures becoming thinner near the ceiling, giving the impression that the Cathedral is actually "pushing up" and nearly touching the sky, etc. Cathedrals, especially Gothic ones, were specifically designed to "create" a separate-world feeling, a supernatural ambiance (note that they almost always look larger onece you're inside--this is especially true in Seville, Spain).
BeHereNow wrote:

I’m still not clear what you consider testing and unfalsifiable.
The Catholic church tests claims of miracles and the basis of sainthood.
I place these in the category of historical events which are unfalseifable. If three people saw a statute drip blood, how can we prove the event false? How is this different from having three people who saw Brutus stab Ceaser? Aren’t both events untestable?

The Catholic Church has its own procedures for accepting or rejecting miracles and saints. Not that those "tests" would satisfy a skeptical observer, of course, because their standards are not as rigorous as they should be, but they do exist anyway. Historians have ways of discovering the truth or falsity of alleged events in the past. The testimony of three people saying that Brutus stabbed Caesar would not be enough. A convergence of different sources of evidence is necessary. Otherwise a historian would say "it is believed that Brutus stabbed Caesar" rather than "Brutus stabbed Caesar".
Finally, while supernatural events are not a logical impossibility, the fact that humans seem to fear them is no good reason to believe in their existence.