Why favor natural explanations over supernatural ones for the resurrection?

[AgnosticBoy]

I often hear skeptics of the resurrection assert that any natural explanation is more probable than a supernatural explanation. Some even go as far as coming up with theories or details that are not even mentioned in the story, like Jesus's body being stolen or that Jesus had a look alike. Perhaps the disciples also assisted in stealing the body. I question this standard or assertion.

What is the justification for favoring the natural explanations? Is it simply that scientists have only accounted for natural or physical phenomenon? In my view, evidence is evidence. If evidence points to a supernatural explanation, one that simply posits a violation of the laws of nature, then that should be the more probable explanation. It doesn't matter if that evidence goes against pre-existing knowledge.

[AgnosticBoy]

Is anyone claiming that UFOs are supernatural? If they aren't, what do UFOs have to do with this thread?


Tcg

I'm not claiming that UFOs are supernatural. I was trying to bring up a standard for accepting things as valid. Some skeptics tend to only accept things that can be scientifically validated or else they dismiss it or default to ordinary/natural explanations. I'm saying that if anything supernatural was ever discovered by scientists, that it would (or should) fall along the same lines as how we treat UFOs. UFOs defy current science, but they are still accepted as phenomenon that exist. In other words, we don't need to have something scientifically validated (documented, tested, AND explained) in order to accept its existence. This is how claims of resurrections, those with decent evidence, should be treated. Their existence should not be denied, ridiculed, imposed with ordinary explanations, but rather they should be taken seriously.

[brunumb]

UFOs defy current science, but they are still accepted as phenomenon that exist.

How can we possibly conclude that they defy current science when we don't know what they are?

[Diagoras]

Some skeptics tend to only accept things that can be scientifically validated or else they dismiss it or default to ordinary/natural explanations.

Can you clarify the difference you mean between ‘scientifically validating’ something and providing an ‘ordinary/natural explanation’?

I'm saying that if anything supernatural was ever discovered by scientists

... then it would cease to be supernatural. Anything that has a physical, measurable manifestation is within the realm of science.

UFOs defy current science, but they are still accepted as phenomenon that exist. In other words, we don't need to have something scientifically validated (documented, tested, AND explained) in order to accept its existence.

Rather than ‘defy’ and ‘accept’, perhaps a more accurate statement about things like UFOs and dark matter would simply state that as yet incomplete and unproven theories about them exist.

This is how claims of resurrections, those with decent evidence, should be treated. Their existence should not be denied, ridiculed, imposed with ordinary explanations, but rather they should be taken seriously.

<bolding mine>

If you remove the bolded words from what you wrote above, and matched that up to my ‘incomplete and unproven’ version of the statement about existence, then I’m not going to argue against that position. However, it’s axiomatic that simple or ordinary explanations for things should carry more weight than fantastical and complicated ones, in the absence if evidence to the contrary.

[JoeyKnothead]

People do deny they exist and for exactly this reason. This is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about with people being intellectual cowards.

What are "intellectual cowards" are those trying to declare the thoughts or motives of people they've never met.

I can only speak for who I have met, but overall they haven't given me a very good impression. They're quick to cough up labels like conspiracy theorist just to avoid having to weigh in on what something unexplained might be or join with the many to make fun of the few. They reflexively sit back in their comfortable position of easy dismissal while never thinking about what something might be themselves. They would rather dismiss it, because when you're actually trying to figure something out, you might be wrong.

Then present these conversations for analysis, or get exposed as an "intellectual coward", "intellectually honest", or

A "liar"!

You dare, you danged dare to call people "intellectual cowards"?

Your notion is the stuff that gets stuck on the shoes of intellectual folks who have to wade them through your ignorance about this issue. And smart as they are, they can't tell if they done trod em through a pasture, or your libellous claims.

"Intellectual cowards" my fourth point of contact!

Let us now, introduce "moron" into this conversation!

[AgnosticBoy]

UFOs defy current science, but they are still accepted as phenomenon that exist.

How can we possibly conclude that they defy current science when we don't know what they are?

In what sense or to what degree do we not know what they are? When you don't qualify your points, it makes it seems as if we know nothing about the phenomenon. We know that UFOs involve objects that have been observed flying in that some remain stationary in the air, some make turns, some fly in fleets or groups, some zoom off in one direction or another seeming to evade military pilots, some eventually disappear and then reappear. We may not know all of the details about them but we do know enough to say that their flight patterns and other behavior defy current technology and science.

And keep in mind, I'm only giving you details from the military just to give it more credibility. If I include details from civilians then the cases get even more bizarre.

[JoeyKnothead]

UFOs defy current science, but they are still accepted as phenomenon that exist.

How can we possibly conclude that they defy current science when we don't know what they are?

In what sense or to what degree do we not know what they are? When you don't qualify your points, it makes it seems as if we know nothing about the phenomenon. We know that UFOs involve objects that have been observed flying in that some remain stationary in the air, some make turns, some fly in fleets or groups, some zoom off in one direction or another seeming to evade military pilots, some eventually disappear and then reappear. We may not know all of the details about them but we do know enough to say that their flight patterns and other behavior defy current technology and science.

And keep in mind, I'm only giving you details from the military just to give it more credibility. If I include details from civilians then the cases get even more bizarre.

Well don't that beat all!

That'n there asks how it is we can tell what they are, and this'n here fusses on how it is we can't.

[AgnosticBoy]

Some skeptics tend to only accept things that can be scientifically validated or else they dismiss it or default to ordinary/natural explanations.

Can you clarify the difference you mean between ‘scientifically validating’ something and providing an ‘ordinary/natural explanation’?

First, let me say that science does not have to be limited to natural/physical explanations. In principle, we should be able to determine the regularities and/or limitations of phenomenon, and when things violate that, then we can all that extraordinary or supernatural. But to address the main point you asked about, it's the difference between doing the scientific work it would take to examine a claim (document, test, explain, etc.) vs. just imposing a natural explanations or just saying that the natural is more probable than any other type of explanation.

I'm saying that if anything supernatural was ever discovered by scientists

... then it would cease to be supernatural. Anything that has a physical, measurable manifestation is within the realm of science.

Keep in mind that supernatural is not always associated with nonphysical or immeasurable. Jesus's resurrection was witnessed by his disciples. They touched his wounds. I don't need to go as far as saying that God was involved, just going from dead to undead is enough. Take also consciousness. Consciousness is not directly measurable, and we can even say that it's questionable that it's entirely physical, but yet scientists are willing to place it within the realm of science (although they once rejected it because it wasn't observable).

UFOs defy current science, but they are still accepted as phenomenon that exist. In other words, we don't need to have something scientifically validated (documented, tested, AND explained) in order to accept its existence.

Rather than ‘defy’ and ‘accept’, perhaps a more accurate statement about things like UFOs and dark matter would simply state that as yet incomplete and unproven theories about them exist.

This kinda gets back to what I explained to brunumb. What I'm bringing up is proven to exist to an extent. A guy is dead for days and all of the sudden he's back walking around. But even if proven is too strong of a word then I can at least say that there is evidence but it's not on the level of proof.

This is how claims of resurrections, those with decent evidence, should be treated. Their existence should not be denied, ridiculed, imposed with ordinary explanations, but rather they should be taken seriously.

<bolding mine>

If you remove the bolded words from what you wrote above, and matched that up to my ‘incomplete and unproven’ version of the statement about existence, then I’m not going to argue against that position. However, it’s axiomatic that simple or ordinary explanations for things should carry more weight than fantastical and complicated ones, in the absence if evidence to the contrary.

Axiomatic? I suppose then that some axioms are a matter of convention and have little to nothing to do with logic or validity.

I don't buy that you have a story that yields evidence for a supernatural occurrence, and yet that evidence gets ignored and placed below explanations that can't be shown to apply to the story (e.g. Jesus's twin brother, hallucinations, etc). I'm a non-believer, and I see a problem with that. I would hope that experts, atheists, theists, or otherwise, can work together to come up with a more fair and balanced standard than what skeptics are offering here.

[Diagoras]

First, let me say that science does not have to be limited to natural/physical explanations.

I disagree if by ‘natural/physical’ you mean ‘existing in the real world’. You can’t investigate something that doesn’t exist.

In principle, we should be able to determine the regularities and/or limitations of phenomenon, and when things violate that, then we can call that extraordinary or supernatural.

It would be lazy to do that. When we discover something supposedly violates a physical law, we design and conduct further experiments to determine how and why the law fails to explain that phenomenon. A good example from history would be the idea of an ‘ether’.

But to address the main point you asked about, it's the difference between doing the scientific work it would take to examine a claim (document, test, explain, etc.) vs. just imposing a natural explanations or just saying that the natural is more probable than any other type of explanation.

That’s now clearer to me, thanks.

Keep in mind that supernatural is not always associated with nonphysical or immeasurable.

We are likely using different definitions of ‘supernatural’ then. I interpret it as either ‘outside the universe’ or ‘not subject to physical laws’. A looser definition might allow mere ‘strange and unexplained’ phenomena.

Take also consciousness. Consciousness is not directly measurable, and we can even say that it's questionable that it's entirely physical, but yet scientists are willing to place it within the realm of science (although they once rejected it because it wasn't observable).

It’s indirectly measurable and detectable though.

What I'm bringing up is proven to exist to an extent. A guy is dead for days and all of the sudden he's back walking around. But even if proven is too strong of a word then I can at least say that there is evidence but it's not on the level of proof.

We can agree that it’s below the level of ‘proof’ then. There are competing theories as to what happened, and some readily accept a supernatural explanation that science (mostly) rejects - or at least considers less likely than mundane explanations like mistaken identity/exaggeration/etc.

I don't buy that you have a story that yields evidence for a supernatural occurrence, and yet that evidence gets ignored and placed below explanations that can't be shown to apply to the story (e.g. Jesus's twin brother, hallucinations, etc).

But those explanations can apply to the story. They are simply theories attempting to explain something extraordinary.

I don’t buy that a simple, plausible and mundane theory (even when no proof is available) has less weight than a supernatural explanation which by definition goes against known physical laws. Even when it offers ‘proof’ (from some later written accounts), that’s still the poorer theory.

I would hope that experts, atheists, theists, or otherwise, can work together to come up with a more fair and balanced standard than what skeptics are offering here.

Science works so well precisely because it is scrupulously fair and balanced: every claim and theory should be subject to the same scrutiny and testing. And the more extraordinary the claim, the higher standard of proof required.

[brunumb]

In what sense or to what degree do we not know what they are? When you don't qualify your points, it makes it seems as if we know nothing about the phenomenon. We know that UFOs involve objects that have been observed flying in that some remain stationary in the air, some make turns, some fly in fleets or groups, some zoom off in one direction or another seeming to evade military pilots, some eventually disappear and then reappear. We may not know all of the details about them but we do know enough to say that their flight patterns and other behavior defy current technology and science.

They appear to move, but it is going a step too far to say they fly which implies that there is some intelligence behind their movement. They can only be said to defy current technology when you actually know what they are. We don't know what they are.

[brunumb]

But to address the main point you asked about, it's the difference between doing the scientific work it would take to examine a claim (document, test, explain, etc.) vs. just imposing a natural explanations or just saying that the natural is more probable than any other type of explanation.

Who imposes natural explanations? When a UFO is identified and it has an ordinary explanation, it is what it is. When a UFO remains unidentified then it has no explanation. Speculation is fine, but when the vast majority of UFO sightings get identified with ordinary explanations, probability would suggest that the rest fall into a similar category. There may be atmospheric phenomena that we are yet to identify, but making the leap to piloted craft from the vast beyond is not really warranted yet.