RE: Is there objective Truth?
October 20, 2016 at 10:13 am
(This post was last modified: October 20, 2016 at 10:15 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
Maybe I a bit confused about how people are using terms. Philosophically, I think of objects as those things whose existences are not contingent upon people's opinions about them. Following this, objectivity simply means deriving knowledge from such objects. I’m not sure what objectivity per se has to do with whether something is considered natural or supernatural.
The distinction, supernatural versus natural, seems entirely arbitrary based on the scope of what people consider possible based on their current understanding of the way the world works. For example, regardless of what people believe about the results or lack thereof in psi contemporary research, it is generally understood that IF psi phenomena are real then it would mean our current understanding of physics is lacking. IF as a consequence of recognizing that deficiency, scientists up-dated our physics to incorporate psi phenomena, it (psi) would no longer be considered supernatural. Psi would then be entirely natural. It should be remembered that in his time, Newton was roundly criticized for the theory of gravity. At the time, everyone believed that things had to bump into each other to causally interact, so the idea that spatially separated bodies could influence one another was considered supernatural.
So while this thread is interesting, I think two parallel conversations are intermingling to the detriment of both. SDC talks about how naturalists can count without having an explanation of how counting is possible. This is the Problem of Universals. It has nothing to do with whether, for example, NDE accounts describe real events, psychic mediums can speak with the dead, remote viewing is possible, or (going further back) whether Jesus walked on water.
The distinction, supernatural versus natural, seems entirely arbitrary based on the scope of what people consider possible based on their current understanding of the way the world works. For example, regardless of what people believe about the results or lack thereof in psi contemporary research, it is generally understood that IF psi phenomena are real then it would mean our current understanding of physics is lacking. IF as a consequence of recognizing that deficiency, scientists up-dated our physics to incorporate psi phenomena, it (psi) would no longer be considered supernatural. Psi would then be entirely natural. It should be remembered that in his time, Newton was roundly criticized for the theory of gravity. At the time, everyone believed that things had to bump into each other to causally interact, so the idea that spatially separated bodies could influence one another was considered supernatural.
So while this thread is interesting, I think two parallel conversations are intermingling to the detriment of both. SDC talks about how naturalists can count without having an explanation of how counting is possible. This is the Problem of Universals. It has nothing to do with whether, for example, NDE accounts describe real events, psychic mediums can speak with the dead, remote viewing is possible, or (going further back) whether Jesus walked on water.
