Atheism

[LadyForCamus]

---

Correct.


I think that what one means by ‘supernatural’, is a necessary clarification in a discussion about evidence.  As I said in my previous post, if we are defining supernatural as ‘not natural’, then it would be a category error to ask for evidence of that which cannot be evident by its own definition. This is why I walked back on my proposition: supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence.

OTOH, if you’re defining ‘supernatural’ as an extension of the natural world, then it would fall into the category of ‘natural things’, or just, ‘things’, and its interactions with other things that exist could produce evidence.

Do you have any objections to the above?  


Where is ‘outside the natural universe’ besides ‘not in the universe’? Is it a physical space? If ‘not-natural’ things exist there, what are they made of? Matter? Something else that’s different from matter but also physical? What qualities or attributes eliminate these things from the category of ‘natural’? Where is this line of demarcation, and what is the rational justification for drawing one at all?

(A)These are not ontological explanations. They’re merely negative descriptions of things we already know exist.  You’re saying what they’re not, instead of what they are. That’s like someone asking me to explain what light is, and I answer: ‘Well, light is...not-dark.’ So, I still don’t understand what you mean by ‘supernatural’.


(B) I agree. As I said above, whatever effects it has on the world that it belongs to would fall under the purview of science, and if these interactions leave behind physical evidence, we may have access to it.


©Correct.  That would be considered personal testimony.


(D) Correct.  Ofc, physical evidence, and enough of it, makes a much stronger case for any claim than testimony.  I can’t imagine that would be in dispute, would it?


This statement is problematic for a couple of reasons:

1. We haven’t adequately defined what ‘supernatural’ is, or what ‘outside the natural world’ is. As someone else mentioned in another post, a logical, causal connection between a natural effect and a supernatural cause cannot be made if that cause can’t even be properly defined, or described. Any argument that claims the cause of an effect must be ‘not-natural’ because we don’t know of a natural explaination, is an argument from ignorance.  

2. You’re propping up these ‘extra-natural’ claims on testimony alone, while failing to consider in context, the well-evidenced facts about the world that disagree with them.

(E) So, have you noticed what happened here? I conceded to your argument that there is no category error by way of allowing the definition of supernatural to mean: an extension of, but still included in, the category of natural things. My concession now allows us to reasonably apply the principles of evidence and evidence analysis uniformly across all claims. This is what you were arguing for at the beginning of the discussion.

The result?  Lack of evidence is still a major problem for biblical claims.

(F) It is a scientific fact that human semen is necessary for human conception. The body of high-quality, scientific evidence supporting this fact is overwhelming. It lands itself at the very top of the evidence hierarchy.  (G) In order for that fact to be overturned, you would need a body of evidence at least as strong as the evidence that supports it. Testimony, at the bottom of the hierarchy, doesn’t even come close.

---

Hello Lady,

(I've included footnotes in red referencing what you wrote)

As I said, I don't get too hung up on the words natural or supernatural. There are a number of miracles in the Bible, which can have natural explanations, although it is the timing which makes them miraculous.  Some are threatened by this, I find it very interesting.  People have some varied meanings about what "supernatural" means, and if you would prefer another definition that is fine with me.  Just let me know what we are talking about.   I was curious so I looked it up.  The first dictionary gave almost exactly the same definition as I did (I must have looked it up before).   However they added outside of science; which I think would follow if it is outside of nature (as that is sciences realm).

The thing is, in order to be able to move forward in this conversation we have to be absolutely clear on what we mean by, ‘supernatural.’  The dictionary definition of the word is rather ambiguous; leaving its implications open to subjective interpretation. Do you consider the supernatural to be an extension of the natural world, or entirely apart from it? Can its activity leave behind evidence?  Is your position that these are seperate categories of things, or a singular category with a superset? (Or subset, depending on how you look at it). This is a linchpin in any discussion regarding what is real, and we’ve got to be brave enough to take positions in order to have productive dialogue.

 My positon is this:

If the supernatural can interact with the natural and leave behind physical evidence, then we’re really just talking about one category: types of natural things. If an object or event exists, and can affect the natural world, then it is a part of that world, and no longer beyond the reaches of science. If this is the case, ‘supernatural’ versus ‘natural’ is a distinction without a meaningful difference.

OTOH, if the supernatural can’t interact with the natural world or produce evidence that it exists, we’re talking about two seperate categories of things. Existing things that are evident, and...whatever the opposite of that is. I’m still waiting for someone to explain it to me.  

I believe this is a true dichotomy.  Do you disagree?

I can understand you complaint about negative definitions (A) However, when we define what A is , then we naturally define NOT A as well.

Not quite. Just because we can determine what something is not, doesn’t necessarily mean we have successfully described what it is.  Let me try another analogy. If you ask me to explain to you what a dog is, and my answer is: ‘well, it’s not a cat, or a bird’, then I haven’t actually described a dog, have I? If something exists, but cannot be evident, what is the rational justification for believing it exists at all?

I had asked you a couple of pointed questions about the supernatural in my previous response that I notice you didn’t answer.  I would really like for you to address them, because I think they’re important. If you can’t answer them, that’s fine. No harm in just saying “I don’t know.”  I have bolded the one that I think is most pivotal to the discussion going forward.

Where is ‘outside the natural universe’ besides ‘not in the universe’? Is it a physical space? If ‘not-natural’ things exist there, what are they made of? Matter? Something else that’s different from matter but also physical? What qualities or attributes eliminate these things from the category of ‘natural’? Where is this line of demarcation, and what is the rational justification for drawing one at all?

Thanks!

which would be anything that doesn't fit into the category of A.   I wouldn't have thought this would be a problem, considering how often the definition of atheist is given here :

’Not a theist’ is neither the definition nor description of ‘atheist’ though, is it? My cat is ‘not a theist’, but that doesn’t make him an atheist.  We can do a far more thorough job of describing the characteristics of atheism. Can we say the same for the word ‘supernatural’?  I’ll point to my questions above.

I agree, one or more people relaying the information for what they have seen would be personal testimony evidence.   As well, there may be evidence which lends itself to scientific study.  Corroborating evidence is always good, and the more the better.  I agree.  However I wouldn't agree, that physical evidence always trumps testimony or direct evidence.   It may (depending on the evidence),  but often testimony can tell you so much more.  In any case, I am leery if there is only a single item of uncorroborated evidence though.  It's more difficult for multiple independent items of evidence to be in error.

Sure. Critical thinking skills are necessary any time we are assessing a cumulative body of evidence and attempting to draw conclusions from it.

Concerning your bullet points.  

1.  If you no what natural is, then you no what supernatural is (according to the definition I gave).   We may not be able to say what exactly supernatural consists of, but we can identify it.

Again, I’m not sure how you could identify something that can’t even be coherently described in concept.

2.  We use evidence to give us knowledge about what we don't know and to support those claims to others.  I think that if you see something or others see something which contradicts your world view, then that is evidence against your prior understanding.

Science isn’t a world view.  It’s a tool for modeling and describing the reality we exist in.

Our science and knowledge changes.   If you look up parthenogenesis, there is reproduction from a single parent.  There was one who accidentally did so in a lab, and this has been used to produce stem cells as well.   It normally only produces females (No X chromosome) however, there is also Chimeraism, where a person could have two sets of DNA, which can be a female and a male set.    I found a lot, that it was said, that it is technically possible, but highly unlikely to happen naturally in humans.

I’m perplexed as to why you would use an example of a well-evidenced, observable, scientifically demonstrated occurrence in a lab in support of an argument in favor of a biblical miracle. Are you saying that Mary’s immaculate conception had a natural cause describable via science?

If an alleged event is accessible to us via scientific inquiry, then it is subject to the same rigorous evidential standards as any other claim about reality, whether you’re calling it natural, or supernatural, or extra-natural, etc.

"In order for that fact to be overturned, you would need a body of evidence at least as strong as the evidence that supports it."  This sounds a lot like a rewording of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

It’s not simply a rewording; it’s a different statement altogether from, “supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence.” It’s what I’ve been trying to explain to you this whole discussion. It’s why I’ve been trying to get out of you what you mean by natural versus supernatural.  I can’t tell if you really don’t understand, or if you’re pretending not to.

If we have something which we do a 999 times, and get a certain result.   Then on the one thousand time, we get a different result.  Do we need to repeat and see the abnormal result 1000 times in order to count what we seen as evidence?

No. We would just need enough evidence to demonstrate that it happened the one time. If the claim, if true, would be a scientific anomaly that contradicts an enormous body of evidence indicating such a occurrence is highly unlikely, we should require equally strong, scientific evidence to demonstrate that it happened at all. Again, testimony from thousands of years ago doesn’t even come close

I will get to the last part of your response soon as I can! Thanks, RR!