How to select which supernatural to believe?

[Fake Messiah]

To believe in ANYTHING supernatural one may as well believe in EVERYTHING supernatural; like witches, goblins demons, gods, talking trees, vampires and dragons to name a few. Why be selective? When no evidence exists for any of them, why dismiss any and not all?

[Angrboda]

To believe in ANYTHING supernatural one may as well believe in EVERYTHING supernatural; like witches, goblins demons, gods, talking trees, vampires and dragons to name a few. Why be selective? When no evidence exists for any of them, why dismiss any and not all?

It's not necessarily a straightforward question what constitutes evidence for the supernatural and thus what evidence there is and for what.

On one level, it's not clear what supernatural actually means in practice. Some define the supernatural as that which is, among other things, not natural. As a straight forward definition, that seems to suggest there can be no valid evidence, depending on views of evidence typically in play. But it's not clear that this is a useful or practical definition from an operational standpoint. Richard Carrier in one of his blog entries suggests that a more meaningful understanding of supernatural is agency that effects the environment through the will of the agent alone, and not through natural means. Thus, if a witch wills her enemy's penis to shrivel up, it does so through her will-power alone and not because she caused it to shrivel up by applying shriveling powder to his penis or something. So on that level, it's not clear what the proper understanding of supernatural should be. Under Carrier's definition, again there is no evidence, but it does make clear the possibility that under some reasonable definition, evidence may be possible, and that, the inability to see the possibility for evidence is an artifact of holding an improper understanding of the supernatural and how to define it.

The other level is that it's not always clear what should be considered evidence and what should not be considered evidence. Someone here repeatedly argued that Jesus' announcing he was going to heal someone being followed by that person being healed was evidence that Jesus had supernaturally healed them. This doesn't strictly follow as Jesus may have simply known healing was imminent but wasn't the cause or that Jesus was using natural means of healing the person of which we, the author, and Jesus' disciples were in the dark about. It's possible Jesus' agency led directly to the healing but it's also possible that it didn't. Still, if it didn't, his announcing healing right before it seemingly magically happens seems difficult to explain other than something he supernaturally caused. Does this count as evidence? Strictly speaking, no, as the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises and it's not clear that the possibility that the arguer concluded is any more probable than any of the explanations otherwise such as Jesus having precognition but no actual healing powers -- he just happens to know when aliens are going to invisibly use their advanced technology to mysteriously heal someone. Still, intuitively it seems more probable. I'm not sure why that is, but it's probably because the supernatural explanation is more familiar than the one involving aliens. However, our familiarity with an explanation doesn't in and of itself make that explanation more probable.

[The Valkyrie]

Dean!

Sam's okay, too.

[TheJefe817]

I think the realization that I didn't believe in *any* supernatural thing was the last big domino to fall for me.  I had already disregarded the bible as a source of truth for many reasons, but was still clinging to the idea that I could be a christian without the literal bible, or even much of an allegorical or vaguely historical bible.  The failure of all supernatural evidence was the final nail (no pun intended).  After that, there was no reasonable explanation for any of it in my situation.

Jettisoning belief in the supernatural has made horror movie viewing (a big pastime of mine) far different.  Most of them aren't scary at all now, unless they involve only natural elements like serial killers.

[Jehanne]

Three quick points:

1) The supernatural can trivially be established by repeatable observations of the violation of the Conservation of Energy on a macroscopic scale. The spontaneous healing of an adult amputee, walking on liquid water under STP conditions, etc., are clear examples of events, which if observed, would falsify naturalism.

2) Supernatural prophecy could be easily established by predicting extremely improbable events, say, the exact sequence of heads/tails in 100 tosses of a coin, which could easily be performed in 15 to 20 minutes.

3) The stories about Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Gospels fall firmly in the category of embellished historical myth & legend. Other than his birth, apocalyptic outlook and execution, mostly nothing in the Gospels should be viewed as being historical. For instance, it is likely that Jesus' earliest followers did not even claim that he performed any naturalistic miracles.

[TheJefe817]

The other level is that it's not always clear what should be considered evidence and what should not be considered evidence. 

This is a tricky one, as I fully admit I do not know what evidence would convince me.  Certainly if something passes the strict testing conditions of something like the JRF million dollar test, maybe.  In terms of religion-based supernatural proof, I actually like something I heard on a podcast recently.  The host said he, like I, did not really know what evidence would convince him.  However, if god is an omni, he *does* know what would convince me, and has failed to provide that evidence.  Therefore, he either does not care about my lack of belief (as, by being omni, he should be able to provide it and knows I would not otherwise be convinced) or, more likely, does not exist at all.

[Angrboda]

Three quick points:

1)  The supernatural can trivially be established by repeatable observations of the violation of the Conservation of Energy on a macroscopic scale.  The spontaneous healing of an adult amputee, walking on liquid water under STP conditions, etc., are clear examples of events, which if observed, would falsify naturalism.

That presumes you can demonstrate a closed system, which is impossible as doing so critically depends on an argument from ignorance.

2)  Supernatural prophecy could be easily established by predicting extremely improbable events, say, the exact sequence of heads/tails in 100 tosses of a coin, which could easily be performed in 15 to 20 minutes.

Again, a closed system problem. It requires the agent to have no naturally acquired information about the event, which you can't demonstrate without disproving precognition, time travel, etc.

3)  The stories about Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Gospels fall firmly in the category of embellished historical myth & legend.  Other than his birth, apocalyptic outlook and execution, mostly nothing in the Gospels should be viewed as being historical.  For instance, it is likely that Jesus' earliest followers did not even claim that he performed any naturalistic miracles.

Some stories about historical figures are likely apocryphal and didn't happen and are therefore historical fiction. That fact alone doesn't mean they necessarily didn't happen.

[Jehanne]

Three quick points:

1)  The supernatural can trivially be established by repeatable observations of the violation of the Conservation of Energy on a macroscopic scale.  The spontaneous healing of an adult amputee, walking on liquid water under STP conditions, etc., are clear examples of events, which if observed, would falsify naturalism.

That presumes you can demonstrate a closed system, which is impossible as doing so critically depends on an argument from ignorance.

2)  Supernatural prophecy could be easily established by predicting extremely improbable events, say, the exact sequence of heads/tails in 100 tosses of a coin, which could easily be performed in 15 to 20 minutes.

Again, a closed system problem. It requires the agent to have no naturally acquired information about the event, which you can't demonstrate without disproving precognition, time travel, etc.

3)  The stories about Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Gospels fall firmly in the category of embellished historical myth & legend.  Other than his birth, apocalyptic outlook and execution, mostly nothing in the Gospels should be viewed as being historical.  For instance, it is likely that Jesus' earliest followers did not even claim that he performed any naturalistic miracles.

Some stories about historical figures are likely apocryphal and didn't happen and are therefore historical fiction. That fact alone doesn't mean they necessarily didn't happen.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on points #1 & #2, and with respect to #3, you're pounding on an open door.

[The Grand Nudger]

We don't really pick it. Alot of the time, our supernatural refers very explicitly to some relationship to our natural. Which is a long winded way of saying that superstitions are incredibly local. That we easily dismiss the superstitions of others related to the same, and to their lack of a relationship with us and our own environments - the ones you mentioned are out-of-time, for example. I read a wonderful article about workplace superstition, how even small groups of people come up with communal superstitions about what they spend most of their time doing.

[Belacqua]

The other level is that it's not always clear what should be considered evidence and what should not be considered evidence. 

This is a tricky one, as I fully admit I do not know what evidence would convince me.  Certainly if something passes the strict testing conditions of something like the JRF million dollar test, maybe.

This strikes me as very strange. Why do we think that a scientific test could have anything to do with the supernatural? Science works as well as it does by limiting itself to certain natural parameters -- methodological naturalism. By definition, the supernatural would not be included in that.

Suppose a coin was going to come down heads, and a supernatural agent intervened to make it come down tails. How would we know this? Suppose a supernatural agent caused you to have a particular dream -- not predicting the future, just a dream. How would we know this?

Human minds evolved in the natural world along very narrow parameters. Our understanding of the world is structured in very particular ways. The idea that our minds necessarily include everything there is in the universe seems unlikely.

  In terms of religion-based supernatural proof, I actually like something I heard on a podcast recently.  The host said he, like I, did not really know what evidence would convince him.  However, if god is an omni, he *does* know what would convince me, and has failed to provide that evidence.  Therefore, he either does not care about my lack of belief (as, by being omni, he should be able to provide it and knows I would not otherwise be convinced) or, more likely, does not exist at all.

This is a version of an argument we hear a lot. 

"I know what an omniscient and omnipotent entity would do, and nobody's doing that, so there must not be such an entity." This puts a lot of confidence in one's own abilities. Human beings are very far from being omni-anything. How are we to know what such an entity would care about, or how it would operate?