(July 3, 2018 at 10:26 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok, I describe supernatural, as outside of the natural universe.

What do you mean by natural?

(July 3, 2018 at 10:48 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 30, 2018 at 7:20 am)SteveII Wrote: For any of this to be valid, you would have to show that science has disproved/called into question religious experiences. It has not come even close, not a little, at all.

Has science disproved religious experiences?  No.  Has it called them into question?  That's a different question.  Why do you believe that science has had zero success toward that end?  The popular view is that scientific evidence does a lot to impugn the reliability of religious experience as a way of interpreting reality.  Do you feel that's wrong?

Since experiencing the supernatural (the proposition) is by definition not natural, science would not be able to detect if the experience was really supernatural. Science therefore can't prove the proposition correct. Can it prove it incorrect? No, I don't think so for three reasons:

1. The more modest claim is that science can find mechanism and propose theories, but by definition cannot rule out the proposition. 
2. Related to #1, successful opposition to the proposition carries a very high burden of proof because of the nature of the question. The proof must be sufficient to undermine individual intuitions that the proposition is true. I don't think this higher burden of proof can be achieved. 
3. A stronger position is that science can look at the brain and it's mechanisms. The proposition is about the mind and I believe entails a dualism that sets up a barrier which science cannot cross. You can have theories, but they are not really testable because you are dealing with the far side of the mind-body connection. 

If you have an article or link on the scientific evidence, I will take a look and give you my thoughts.

(June 26, 2018 at 1:47 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(June 25, 2018 at 9:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Atheists however assert a lot of things all the time. And when they do, isn’t it easonable to ask why they believe that?

For example I'm an atheist who asserts that Trump is an even bigger disaster as a president than he is as a human being. Did you want to ask why I believe that? I assume you realize that what I believe about Trump and pretty nearly everything else is independent of my not believing gods have any existence independent of the people's heads who believe in them. Can you think of anything which all atheists must believe in common based only on our not believing in gods?

I think atheists probably have no more varying views than Christians. Maybe even less politically. Since the vast majority are socially liberal, pro-choice, etc. (Myself included) and Christian's in America are more divided on those issues.

(July 3, 2018 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: Since experiencing the supernatural (the proposition) is by definition not natural, science would not be able to detect if the experience was really supernatural. Science therefore can't prove the proposition correct. Can it prove it incorrect? No, I don't think so for three reasons:

Nor can science prove that you won't float away if you jump out the window but neither is it a good idea to base your life on the possibility that you will.

(July 3, 2018 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. The more modest claim is that science can find mechanism and propose theories, but by definition cannot rule out the proposition. 

Nor can you rule out the possibility of floating if you jump out a window. So why don't you?

(July 3, 2018 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2. Related to #1, successful opposition to the proposition carries a very high burden of proof because of the nature of the question. The proof must be sufficient to undermine individual intuitions that the proposition is true. I don't think this higher burden of proof can be achieved.

No. You carry the burden of proof because you are the one asserting that there is a supernatural cause. You also need to define what supernatural is and how it is distinct from natural and provide evidence that it exists. In the meantime scientists will continue asserting that there is a natural cause for religious experience and providing evidence, as they have already started to do. You have a lot of catching up to do.


 

(July 3, 2018 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: 3. A stronger position is that science can look at the brain and it's mechanisms. The proposition is about the mind and I believe entails a dualism that sets up a barrier which science cannot cross. You can have theories, but they are not really testable because you are dealing with the far side of the mind-body connection. 

You are making a false distinction between brain and mind. The mind is an emergent property of the brain. We have plenty of evidence that this is so because when you start to destroy the brain, the mind gets destroyed as well. There is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that the mind can exist without a brain.

(July 3, 2018 at 1:14 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 10:26 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok, I describe supernatural, as outside of the natural universe.

What do you mean by natural?

Or 'outside'?

(July 3, 2018 at 1:59 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: Since experiencing the supernatural (the proposition) is by definition not natural, science would not be able to detect if the experience was really supernatural. Science therefore can't prove the proposition correct. Can it prove it incorrect? No, I don't think so for three reasons:

Nor can science prove that you won't float away if you jump out the window but neither is it a good idea to base your life on the possibility that you will.

(July 3, 2018 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. The more modest claim is that science can find mechanism and propose theories, but by definition cannot rule out the proposition. 

Nor can you rule out the possibility of floating if you jump out a window. So why don't you?

(July 3, 2018 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2. Related to #1, successful opposition to the proposition carries a very high burden of proof because of the nature of the question. The proof must be sufficient to undermine individual intuitions that the proposition is true. I don't think this higher burden of proof can be achieved.

No. You carry the burden of proof because you are the one asserting that there is a supernatural cause. You also need to define what supernatural is and how it is distinct from natural and provide evidence that it exists. In the meantime scientists will continue asserting that there is a natural cause for religious experience and providing evidence, as they have already started to do. You have a lot of catching up to do.


 

(July 3, 2018 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: 3. A stronger position is that science can look at the brain and it's mechanisms. The proposition is about the mind and I believe entails a dualism that sets up a barrier which science cannot cross. You can have theories, but they are not really testable because you are dealing with the far side of the mind-body connection. 

You are making a false distinction between brain and mind. The mind is an emergent property of the brain. We have plenty of evidence that this is so because when you start to destroy the brain, the mind gets destroyed as well. There is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that the mind can exist without a brain.

Now watch Steve pull Dualism nonsense

Remember theists must try and limit science so it can't take their unicorns away

(July 3, 2018 at 1:49 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 1:47 pm)Whateverist Wrote: For example I'm an atheist who asserts that Trump is an even bigger disaster as a president than he is as a human being.  Did you want to ask why I believe that?  I assume you realize that what I believe about Trump and pretty nearly everything else is independent of my not believing gods have any existence independent of the people's heads who believe in them.  Can you think of anything which all atheists must believe in common based only on our not believing in gods?

I think atheists probably have no more varying views than Christians. Maybe even less politically. Since the vast majority are socially liberal, pro-choice, etc. (Myself included) and Christian's in America are more divided on those issues.

Perhaps opting out of religion in a society which is predominantly religious, correlates most often with at least a tolerance for non conventionality, hence more liberal than conservative on the whole. Global summaries like these are slippery at best and probably not worth the bother.

(July 3, 2018 at 11:02 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 10:48 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Has science disproved religious experiences?  No.  Has it called them into question?  That's a different question.  Why do you believe that science has had zero success toward that end?  The popular view is that scientific evidence does a lot to impugn the reliability of religious experience as a way of interpreting reality.  Do you feel that's wrong?

Or to reappropriate your reply ...

Has science proven that all forms of lightning are not due to the god Thor? No.  Has it called their cause into question?  That's a different question.  Why would anyone believe that science has had zero success toward that end?  The popular view is that scientific evidence does a lot to impugn the idea that thunder and lightning are created by Thor. Does Stevell feel that's wrong?

False analogy. Lightening is a natural phenomenon. Religious experiences are a supernatural phenomenon. Science only deals with the natural world, so scientific success can be measured in one and not in the other. 

Quote:Of course no one nowadays believes that Thor is responsible for lightning storms because we have a far more plausible explanation for them. Science is in the process of doing the same with religious experiences. We're not there yet because brains are extremely complex but the more we learn the more we find out that they function as a purely mechanistic process.

Ignoring the question begging nature of that whole paragraph, I am aware of no progress on the mind/body dualism question. In fact, I think that stating that we are purely mechanistic is a belief that stems from metaphysical naturalism (philosophy) rather than actual science.

(July 3, 2018 at 12:27 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Also it is not energy to separate supernatural from natural to say that they are separate categories or that they are different. A category error is About imposing a category incorrectly.  

@Lady The question still remains about what you are indicating is a category error

I’m a stay at home mom with 4 year old and 18 month old boys; give me a break, will ya? 😛  I’m gettin’ to it, just as soon as I have a few minutes to be alone with my brain. 😉

(July 3, 2018 at 2:47 pm)SteveII Wrote: Religious experiences are a supernatural phenomenon.

Seems like a claim, which, by its very nature, cannot possibly have any evidence for it. (For various reasons.) So you have a claim with no evidence, which you can only abet by assuming the supernatural exists, which is begging the question. This seems to be the lynchpin of your argument, so I don't see how it can succeed. You in the past have suggested that people having foreknowledge of supernatural events is evidence in favor of people having knowledge of the supernatural nature of those events. However that doesn't follow. At best, it's an argument from ignorance, so the conclusion is not reliable. This is a fundamental epistemic problem that I don't believe you can get around. Even if people have foreknowledge of an event or attribute an event to the supernatural, that in itself isn't evidence that the event is supernatural. You would have to assume the supernatural exists in order for the conclusion to follow, so you've once again begged the question. I've heard your argument multiple times, and the fundamental objection remains the same. Since we cannot have any knowledge of the source of supernatural events by natural means -- zero, zip, nada -- the only possible source of evidence for the source of a supernatural event must itself be supernatural, and once again you've begged the question. I know you think you can get around it inductively, but I don't believe you can. Nothing you've presented suggests otherwise. Zero information is zero information, no matter how many times you add it to the mix.