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?

[Mithrae]

I might equally say with just as much meaning that the Jabberwocky walked on water, and this is true if he did and false if he did not. If you are right then claiming the Jabberwocky walked on water is both a meaningful proposition and possible. I’d say that is pretty obviously wrong. Not becuse the Jabbwerwocky is obvioius fiction and Jesus might have been real, but because in principle there is no way to test or falsify either if someone insists they are real possibilities.

You seem to be confusing rules of thought and logic with our capacity for relative certainty or testability of claims.

I hope I’m not. it I think what I am saying is correct.

I think I'd have to stand by that comment. You seem to be saying that because there is no way to test or falsify either (JabberW or Jesus walking on water), they are not meaningful propositions or possible.

Yes. That is it what I am saying. I think this is the correct assessment of the semantics. The qualification is that “meaningful� is here used in the analytical sense drawn from the likes of Frege, Russell, the early Wittgenstein, Ayer and Popper. To denote a state of affairs a proposition has to be be true or false, and if there is no way (in principle) to falsify a sentence it can never be false. On this view the Jabberwocky or Jesus walking on water belong to a class of sentences that fail to form a proposition.

Unless Frege, Russell, the early Wittgenstein, Aver and Popper were writing about paradoxes - or you're not representing them accurately - I'd have to say that on face value it seems they must have been wrong. Our limited scope for knowledge and testability is not, has never been in the past and never will be a limit on what can be a proposition and/or possible.

I suspect that you're not correct in claiming that as a view of those philosophers.

It would then follow that because there's no way to test or falsify that Plato wrote the Republic (no more so than Jesus walking on water, at least), the claim that he wrote the Republic is neither a meaningful proposition nor possible.

But there is a way to falsify whether Plato wrote the republic. Someone just has to dig up a manuscript of the republic dated to around 400 BCE with the name of another author attached. There is no document that can be dug up that would falsify Jesus walking on water. Let's say a Gospel of Mary (or someone else) turned up that said they were there and Jesus did not walk on water but they heard Matthew and Mark agree to make the story up, this is not going to falsify the sentence "Jesus walked on water".

Of course it would. As much as a 400BCE copy of the Republic would, at least. The fact that some people won't believe, that some people might invoke billionaire conspiracy theories as a last resort to explain the evidence, does not eliminate the possibility of reasonable falsification.

By your own standards, it seems any claim of naturalism is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a meaningful proposition and not possible. Which of course means that any distinction you conceive between 'natural' and 'supernatural' must be meaningless...

Kinda seems as though you've defeated yourself

[Slopeshoulder]

To Furrowed Brow:
Your posts in this thread as to the supernatural and 'the falsifiability of truth claims' are excellent and deserve their own separate thread for emphasis. I recommend you start one and restate the principles and examples you have outlined here in your OP.

If we could all recognize and understand the category mistake of making truth claims that cannot be tested and that are thus are non-falsifiable, perhaps we could begin to rid ourselves of biblical literal fundamentalism when it comes to 'the supernatural'. Christians, Muslims and strong Atheists all need to understand that truth claims of 'God exists' or 'Allah exists' or 'there is no God' and the attendant 'truth blather' that accompanies them are all equally non-falsifiable and meaningless. Upon what basis could they be anything but meaningless? Without a coherent definition of what a 'God' would consist of, these claims don't mean anything at all.

I will end with your superb summarizing line:
"For those who don't believe, there is already plenty of convincing falsifying evidence that people do not walk on water so we really do not need to confirm that this is a lie. For the folks who do believe, they are using language in a way that means they have long ago stopped talking about the facts of the matter."

Good stuff. I strongly recommend anyone interested in this topic (language, meaning, religion) to familiarize themselves with the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein in his early and later stages. Also, Norman Malcolm's book about LW and religion is helpful. Also the story and work of GEM Anscombe (student of LW who became catholic) and husband peter geach, and the work of DZ Philips as well as the influence on the post-liberal, post-foundational, narrative, and grammatical theologies and the influence of LW on them and how a spate of them went catholic. Lastly, the book post-analytic philosophy, ed. by rachmann and west, is very good in this regard. This was all the stuff I was into 20 years ago and I still think it's fascinating. On a sideline, the hermeneutics of Gadamer and the theologians he influenced (Riceour, Tracy, et al) is related here. And the Popper vs. Wittgenstein stuff is fun too. And all that flows later into the topic of deconstruction and theology (later Derrida and others).
In other words, logic, language, meaning, and religion have been well-explored in the last 100 years. It's been the focus. I'm stupid, so I tend to emphasize secondary sources.
Net, one can use analytical and post-analytical philosophy to be atheist or theistic in orientation.

[arian]

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?

Ah yes, ... the supernatural realm where:

- 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*

But, .... If this post is questioning God and His Spiritual realm and Power, that is another story. If so, .. then I would like to first mention Satan, since somehow that always seems to slip the minds of atheists. I mean hey, ... far fetched conspiracy theories are ALMOST believable... to one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of [strike]a trillionth [/strike]of a percent (one trillionth less than the supernatural) .. you know, ... as IF there was a conspiracy to create a One World Order or something, ... geesh!!...

anyways, the gods, and ghosts and angels with wings, an Mother Mary wearing a halo that live in the 'supernatural realm' are a figment of mans imagination, which has replaced his desire to believe in our real God who lives in the Spiritual realm. Those who believe in the 'supernatural' can only perform magic, tell lies like claim to see ghosts, or like the kid who seen an angel and is taken on a tour to all the Churches (I like that one) just like the Columbine-shooting girl/hero/prophetess who her dad made famous by lies and falsified diaries.
These are frustrated people who have decided that:
'If we can't do miracles to get people in the churches, ... then we'll dazzle them with bull s__t.'
Oh all the 'supernatural stories' that were made up about the sinking of the Titanic, ... especially after the new movie of it came out, made me sick to my stomach.

I agree, ... enough with the supernatural already, let's get back to reality like Gods Creation and the laws He appointed to it to keep it together and in beautiful order. Look at the DNA in everything He made. Let's consider the endless universe, the frightfulness of deep-space and the comfort we enjoy on this tiny planet called earth, the awesome power of the sun, the amazing complexity in the way God dressed even the lily's of the field, where even Solomon in ALL his glory was not arrayed as these. Now that is a worthwhile topic.

[Goat]

[
I agree, ... enough with the supernatural already, let's get back to reality like Gods Creation and the laws He appointed to it to keep it together and in beautiful order. Look at the DNA in everything He made. Let's consider the endless universe, the frightfulness of deep-space and the comfort we enjoy on this tiny planet called earth, the awesome power of the sun, the amazing complexity in the way God dressed even the lily's of the field, where even Solomon in ALL his glory was not arrayed as these. Now that is a worthwhile topic.

The claim that reality is "God's Creation' IS a supernatural claim... and then the whole 'Everything he made' is one big logical fallacy known as the 'Argument from personal incredulity'.

[arian]

[
I agree, ... enough with the supernatural already, let's get back to reality like Gods Creation and the laws He appointed to it to keep it together and in beautiful order. Look at the DNA in everything He made. Let's consider the endless universe, the frightfulness of deep-space and the comfort we enjoy on this tiny planet called earth, the awesome power of the sun, the amazing complexity in the way God dressed even the lily's of the field, where even Solomon in ALL his glory was not arrayed as these. Now that is a worthwhile topic.

The claim that reality is "God's Creation' IS a supernatural claim... and then the whole 'Everything he made' is one big logical fallacy known as the 'Argument from personal incredulity'.

Thanks Goat.

For science to study the universe is one thing, but to come up with wild theories of how it all got here is also; "one big logical fallacy known as the 'Argument from personal incredulity'"

So you believe that the universe with all the living-wonders of it has evolved, because Darwin said so? So what about mans obvious desire to seek, .. or the obvious opposition against a Creator-God, is that not evidence? Look how strong the opposition is against the Bible? It explains everything about our universe, man, how it came about, why we're here and what happens after we die.

Did Darwin witness first hand the evolution of the species, any species? Or do we just 'believe' him and the rest we build upon it with data collected from the present universe?

That would be something like; performing an autopsy on Michael Jackson while he was alive, to try to determine what killed him? well, .. kind of in the reverse, we find dead bones to see how those creatures lived? Then find another very different bone, and claiming it is the same species, only a few million years earlier. Once we establish a pattern, we just follow that pattern and keep building on it to the present age. "See the ape, that is us just a few million years erlyer."

Do you believe there is a possibility of prejudice involved in the evolution theory, that scientists tend to 'make up' certain data to fill in the gaps,
.. or not?

If I was already an atheist with an added hate of Christianity (wouldn't be hard), and became a scientist to build upon the evolution theory, do you actually believe I would be just and fare, even if I found evidence against the theory? ESPECIALLY if I went into the study believing it as fact. Do you believe I would 'risk' my job and all the years of study and hard work I and thousands of scientists throughout the years did to build upon it?

[olavisjo]

If we could all recognize and understand the category mistake of making truth claims that cannot be tested and that are thus are non-falsifiable, perhaps we could begin to rid ourselves of biblical literal fundamentalism when it comes to 'the supernatural'. Christians, Muslims and strong Atheists all need to understand that truth claims of 'God exists' or 'Allah exists' or 'there is no God' and the attendant 'truth blather' that accompanies them are all equally non-falsifiable and meaningless. Upon what basis could they be anything but meaningless? Without a coherent definition of what a 'God' would consist of, these claims don't mean anything at all.

Of course you do understand that what you just said is self refuting. So your own claim does not mean anything at all either.

[Flail]

If we could all recognize and understand the category mistake of making truth claims that cannot be tested and that are thus are non-falsifiable, perhaps we could begin to rid ourselves of biblical literal fundamentalism when it comes to 'the supernatural'. Christians, Muslims and strong Atheists all need to understand that truth claims of 'God exists' or 'Allah exists' or 'there is no God' and the attendant 'truth blather' that accompanies them are all equally non-falsifiable and meaningless. Upon what basis could they be anything but meaningless? Without a coherent definition of what a 'God' would consist of, these claims don't mean anything at all.

Of course you do understand that what you just said is self refuting. So your own claim does not mean anything at all either.

Your opinion here is far from the case. We have coherent definitions for every thing I said and word I used with the exception of an actual/factual supernatural being commonly referred to as 'God.' And, of course, it is not meaningless at all to discuss such beings in the context of philosophy, allegory, myth and metaphor (BibleGod), but when the topic is the existence or non-existence of such beings, the attendant truth claims are meaningless.

[olavisjo]

If we could all recognize and understand the category mistake of making truth claims that cannot be tested and that are thus are non-falsifiable, ...

Of course you do understand that what you just said is self refuting. So your own claim does not mean anything at all either.

Your opinion here is far from the case.

Then by all means please show us how "making truth claims that cannot be tested and that are thus are non-falsifiable" is a category mistake.
How do you test such a claim, and how do you falsify it?

[Goat]

[
I agree, ... enough with the supernatural already, let's get back to reality like Gods Creation and the laws He appointed to it to keep it together and in beautiful order. Look at the DNA in everything He made. Let's consider the endless universe, the frightfulness of deep-space and the comfort we enjoy on this tiny planet called earth, the awesome power of the sun, the amazing complexity in the way God dressed even the lily's of the field, where even Solomon in ALL his glory was not arrayed as these. Now that is a worthwhile topic.

The claim that reality is "God's Creation' IS a supernatural claim... and then the whole 'Everything he made' is one big logical fallacy known as the 'Argument from personal incredulity'.

Thanks Goat.

For science to study the universe is one thing, but to come up with wild theories of how it all got here is also; "one big logical fallacy known as the 'Argument from personal incredulity'"

So you believe that the universe with all the living-wonders of it has evolved, because Darwin said so? So what about mans obvious desire to seek, .. or the obvious opposition against a Creator-God, is that not evidence? Look how strong the opposition is against the Bible? It explains everything about our universe, man, how it came about, why we're here and what happens after we die.

No, I don't believe something 'just because Darwin says so'. That would not be reasonable or logical. However, the conclusions that Darwin did about variation followed by natural selection has shown itself to be a very powerful and accurate
model of how life exists and changes over time, all without invoking a 'creator god'. Sure, the bible 'explains everything about our universe'.. but the explanation it makes does not match the evidence. Since the evidence points to a large portion of it not being accurate, then, I see no reason to accept anything it says for 'what happens after we die'. Since the bible has been shown to be wrong about our origins (in a literal sense), why should it be right about the untestable and unprovable destination . It seems to me that question about 'why we are here' isn't answered in the bible either..

Did Darwin witness first hand the evolution of the species, any species? Or do we just 'believe' him and the rest we build upon it with data collected from the present universe?

No, he looked at the various species, and fossils. That is known as 'forensic evidence'.

Did you see God creating the universe and man? Did you see the writers observing that? What is the evidence did they base their claims on?

Now, when it comes to 'discussing gods' creations'.

Let's see the evidence that the universe is an actual creation rather than emergent quality of subatomic particle interaction.

[olavisjo]

Let's see the evidence that the universe is an actual creation rather than emergent quality of subatomic particle interaction.

Do you hold morality to be an emergent quality of subatomic particle interaction? Or do you simply deny the existence morality altogether?