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?

[McCulloch]

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

Morality is an abstract concept. It does not exist in the sense that gravity or electricity exists. There are a number of very useful abstract concepts: language; justice; beauty; harmony; fairness; mathematics; logic; ownership; duty; honor; ...

Do any or all of these things require a supernatural explanation?

[olavisjo]

Morality is an abstract concept. It does not exist in the sense that gravity or electricity exists. There are a number of very useful abstract concepts: language; justice; beauty; harmony; fairness; mathematics; logic; ownership; duty; honor; ...

Do any or all of these things require a supernatural explanation?

Okay, then would I be correct in saying that kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing a 13 year old girl is just an abstract concept? And if done skillfully, no consequences need follow.

[Flail]

Morality is an abstract concept. It does not exist in the sense that gravity or electricity exists. There are a number of very useful abstract concepts: language; justice; beauty; harmony; fairness; mathematics; logic; ownership; duty; honor; ...

Do any or all of these things require a supernatural explanation?

Okay, then would I be correct in saying that kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing a 13 year old girl is just an abstract concept? And if done skillfully, no consequences need follow.

If they have actually occurred, they would be 'events'. Otherwise they are hypotheticals illustrating the listed abstract concepts....ie, existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

In my view, what are frequently referred to as morals are simply codifications of implicit social contracts that have developed and evolved over time between members of societies and different societies for the purpose of survival and social order. They don't require a God, they require a human author(s).

[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, ...

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?

A category mistake is one in which things of a kind are joined or presented as if they belong to one another...as in 'truth' and 'God'; or 'God' and 'exists'.

One could argue for it; or one could simply look it up.

[olavisjo]

In my view, what are frequently referred to as morals are simply codifications of implicit social contracts that have developed and evolved over time between members of societies and different societies for the purpose of survival and social order. They don't require a God, they require a human author(s).

In other words (if I understand you correctly) if someone desires to do such things and has the skill to do it undetected there would be nothing wrong with it.

[Flail]

In my view, what are frequently referred to as morals are simply codifications of implicit social contracts that have developed and evolved over time between members of societies and different societies for the purpose of survival and social order. They don't require a God, they require a human author(s).

In other words (if I understand you correctly) if someone desires to do such things and has the skill to do it undetected there would be nothing wrong with it.

Good question. In my view, we are all imbued with common sense, which, of course could come from something supernatural..or not...impossible to tell. Such 'intuition' or 'common sense' would seem to be at the basis of the age old doctrine of ethical reciprocity (co-opted after the fact by Christianity as the Golden Rule). Common sense dictates that doing something that would be harmful or painful if done to you, would be something you likewise should not do to another. Such behavior has been observed in monkeys.

[olavisjo]

Common sense dictates that doing something that would be harmful or painful if done to you, would be something you likewise should not do to another.

That does not work, you cant say...

IS harmful or painful therefore OUGHT not do it.

You can't derive an ought from an is.


But this is the basic difference between atheism and Christianity, in atheism all things are permitted but in Christianity one will be judged for every act committed and every word uttered.

[Flail]

Common sense dictates that doing something that would be harmful or painful if done to you, would be something you likewise should not do to another.

That does not work, you cant say...

IS harmful or painful therefore OUGHT not do it.

You can't derive an ought from an is.


But this is the basic difference between atheism and Christianity, in atheism all things are permitted but in Christianity one will be judged for every act committed and every word uttered.

I am not an atheist (one claims that 'God' does not exist); I am a secular humanist and a skeptic and an Ignostic(one who claims we cannot possibly know what a 'God' would be). As such, I agree that often strong atheism and theism are unfairly judged upon different standards. To me, both atheism and theism fail by reason of their unsubstantiated, unverifiable and meaningless clams that either 'God exists' or 'God does not exist'.

As I stated, I do not 'know' from whence our intuition or common sense emanates, very possibly it has evolved from trial and error since pre-history, perhaps it was imbued by something supernatural, but I refuse to attribute such things to 'ultimate' notions as particularly peculiar as BibleGod.

[McCulloch]

But this is the basic difference between atheism and Christianity, in atheism all things are permitted but in Christianity one will be judged for every act committed and every word uttered.

In other words, the basic difference between the basis of morality for a Christian and an atheist is this. A Christian attempts to do good deeds because he or she anticipates that final judgement where all his or her deeds and words will be judged by God. An atheist attempts to do good deeds because it is the right thing to do. Right?

[joncash]

Hi McCulloch,

Jesus Christ, himself, pointed out this phenomenon. He called it hypocrisy. All punishment breeds hypocrisy by perverting our motives. Many people don't do bad things merely because the consequences would not please them. Many people do good things only to be seen by others. Isn't it obvious how hollow such existences are? Good done for any other reason than its own sake ceases to be good. This is because good must be unattached and selfless, an offering to the One who inspires all beings to a greater purpose than themselves.

Christian belief in a punishing god is puzzling. A god who punishes evil and rewards good is not an idea from Jesus Christ who said God to "rain on the just and unjust alike."