Answers needed

[Louis Chérubin]

To make my point about validity of the conclusion and the validity of the method being two different things:

Say we have a die, a normal 6 sided one, and it's inside a metal cube. We shake the cube about the place, then slam it down. We can't possibly see through the cube, and let's say even the sound is muffled so we have no clue what is going on in there.

Now, I can claim to know that the die has landed showing a 6 on the upwards face. I give no evidence for this, and no argument as to why this should be the case. My method is not valid. However, my conclusion may be valid by pure chance, roughly 1 in 6.

I could also claim that the die has landed so that it is balancing on one of the corners of the cube. Again, I give no evidence or arguments. My method is not valid, but my conclusion could possibly be valid, although extremely unlikely.

I could instead claim the die hasn't landed at all and is floating inside the cube. No one can prove that this is impossible within the rules of this scenario. But that doesn't mean that it is actually possible, either.

In all these cases, I'm offering up guesses and nothing more. My opinion should be ignored, because I'm offering nothing but speculation and not adding any explanation or understanding that we can learn from. The fact that my answers either are possible, or haven't been proved to be impossible, is irrelevant. So I don't need to claim that "god", whatever it is, is an impossible concept in order to point out that any particular method trying to demonstrate this is flawed.

Robvalue,

This is a beautiful analogy. I think I understand what you’re saying. However, I personally don’t feel it reflects the issue well. Could I steal the die from you for a second? The die represents all of reality. While lying on a table, the five exposed sides represent the natural world—what we can see. While I can’t directly observe the hidden side, I can deduce what number it is by observing the exposed sides.

You may think that this presupposes a supernatural realm. I don’t think so. I can see by the shape of the die that one side is missing. For me, the picture nature presents does not create a satisfactorily complete whole. One side is missing, so to speak. However, I feel I can deduce from nature (the exposed sides) what this missing part is.

There, take the die back. . .

[robvalue]

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it

Sure, I get what you are saying. You are welcome to borrow my dice anytime! I understand how our lack of complete understanding leaves holes of uncertainty.

However, in the example you just used, we know all about dice. We know from experience that when one is sitting on the table, there is a hidden side. So even if we can't see the die, if it's showing one number upwards, we know it's also showing one downwards.

However, we have no such experience with "realities". We have no other ones to look at or to compare to. We just have this one. As it happens, that is the problem with the argument from design; we have no non-designed universe to compare to.

I think what you're describing is your mind being unsatisified with the lack of answers science has yet given us, and yearning to fill in the gaps. Sure, there are many, many things we don't understand, and maybe we will never understand them. You could I suppose label the group of things we will never understand "Supernatural". It's an elastic word, it means whatever you want.

I view "the supernatural" (if it exists) as another layer of reality superimposed on our reality. It can act upon our reality, but nothing in this reality can act upon it. Kind of like a block of flats where if you leave the tap on, the water will go through the floor and into the flat below, but can't float upwards into the one above. Maybe there are several layers of different supernature in this way.

Now, I have absolutely no idea if anything I just described actually exists. If you've read my webpage you'll know why; it's because we can't test it! We only see the effects of the supernatural through the natural, as you said before. We can't possibly distinguish between a natural cause we don't yet understand, and a supernatural cause. So if something happens beyond our comprehension, the best we can say is we don't yet understand the cause. It may have some supernatural causation involved, it may not. We can't possibly tell. And if there is some such causation, we can't learn anything about it. All we can gain from it is the "messages" we receive through its interaction. Since they are written in "natural language" we can't ever be certain the author was ever anything other than natural.

When something mind blowing does happen, or appears to happen, we can say "I don't know what the cause of that is. It could be natural, or supernatural. Let's investigate to see if I can find any natural causes." Time and again, this approach has found natural causes for seemingly impossible events.

Or we can say, "It was caused by the supernatural!" However, we can't possibly know that this is true. Even if it is true, we have no way to possibly investigate this supernatural cause or learn anything about it. And being satisfied with this conclusion can lead you to stop searching for answers which may be just around the corner in the natural world. The phrase "I don't know" is one many people feel very uncomfortable with when it comes to the big questions of life, but it's the only honest one. It should be seen as an opportunity to learn, rather than something to be scared of. We don't know, but let's see if we can find out It's easy to fall into the trap of saying, "This is just too freaky and amazing, it just can't have a natural explanation!" Us not knowing about a possible natural explanation, or being unable to imagine one, doesn't stop there potentially being one. Jumping to a supernatural conclusion is, for this reason, always premature!

[kevinvarley]

Hi Louis
Here is my take on your questions. Before i begin to anwer, you should know that i am 70 years old and have reach the following conclusion after scores of years of research/thought.
I am an atheist.
A question i found difficulty in answering was. Why do people who are more intelligent than me believe in god? MlI have concluded.....mm
1. In the believer there is a need.
2. Beleivers are able to rationalize fact away
3. Intelligence does not play any part in 1 & 2.

Try not to fall into the 'god gap' i mean, if we dont know how the universe began it must be god nonsense. Let the scientists work it it out and explain it.

Im happy to share more with you if you would like to.

[Whateverist]

Welcome aboard Kevin. I liked your question: "Why do people who are more intelligent than me believe in god?"

In answering it I would want to look in depth into your "1. In the believer there is a need." What is the nature of this need, what adaptive value does it provide?

Personally I think atheists who dismiss it as a primitive hold-over from a time when we didn't understand what caused lightening aren't really interested in answering your question. But to the degree we avoid facing the best case possible, we are guilty of building straw men instead .. something we are all too familiar with on this site when theists do it.

Obviously believers who read the bible literally are encumbered by loads of cognitive dissonance and probably are not among the people who are more intelligent than me who believe in god. So at the outset, I would propose leaving aside the worse instances of god belief and focus instead exclusively on the phenomenon of god belief as it appears in the best cases.

When we finally have an adequate answer to your question I am quite certain it will not expand our understanding of physics or cosmology. Rather it will involve something we find out about our own psychology.

[Louis Chérubin]

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it

Sure, I get what you are saying. You are welcome to borrow my dice anytime! I understand how our lack of complete understanding leaves holes of uncertainty.

However, in the example you just used, we know all about dice. We know from experience that when one is sitting on the table, there is a hidden side. So even if we can't see the die, if it's showing one number upwards, we know it's also showing one downwards.

However, we have no such experience with "realities". We have no other ones to look at or to compare to. We just have this one. As it happens, that is the problem with the argument from design; we have no non-designed universe to compare to.

I think what you're describing is your mind being unsatisified with the lack of answers science has yet given us, and yearning to fill in the gaps. Sure, there are many, many things we don't understand, and maybe we will never understand them. You could I suppose label the group of things we will never understand "Supernatural". It's an elastic word, it means whatever you want.

I view "the supernatural" (if it exists) as another layer of reality superimposed on our reality. It can act upon our reality, but nothing in this reality can act upon it. Kind of like a block of flats where if you leave the tap on, the water will go through the floor and into the flat below, but can't float upwards into the one above. Maybe there are several layers of different supernature in this way.

Now, I have absolutely no idea if anything I just described actually exists. If you've read my webpage you'll know why; it's because we can't test it! We only see the effects of the supernatural through the natural, as you said before. We can't possibly distinguish between a natural cause we don't yet understand, and a supernatural cause. So if something happens beyond our comprehension, the best we can say is we don't yet understand the cause. It may have some supernatural causation involved, it may not. We can't possibly tell. And if there is some such causation, we can't learn anything about it. All we can gain from it is the "messages" we receive through its interaction. Since they are written in "natural language" we can't ever be certain the author was ever anything other than natural.

When something mind blowing does happen, or appears to happen, we can say "I don't know what the cause of that is. It could be natural, or supernatural. Let's investigate to see if I can find any natural causes." Time and again, this approach has found natural causes for seemingly impossible events.

Or we can say, "It was caused by the supernatural!" However, we can't possibly know that this is true. Even if it is true, we have no way to possibly investigate this supernatural cause or learn anything about it. And being satisfied with this conclusion can lead you to stop searching for answers which may be just around the corner in the natural world. The phrase "I don't know" is one many people feel very uncomfortable with when it comes to the big questions of life, but it's the only honest one. It should be seen as an opportunity to learn, rather than something to be scared of. We don't know, but let's see if we can find out It's easy to fall into the trap of saying, "This is just too freaky and amazing, it just can't have a natural explanation!" Us not knowing about a possible natural explanation, or being unable to imagine one, doesn't stop there potentially being one. Jumping to a supernatural conclusion is, for this reason, always premature!

Wow. Thank you so much for your detailed response.

I understand what you’re saying. There’s something apparently antithetical between the concepts of nature and the supernatural.

However, I still don’t follow how your logic leads to the conclusion that the supernatural is not an available explanation for the origin of the universe. From my perspective, it seems you are dismissing supernatural causation simply because all you can see is the natural world. To put it in a potentially offensive way, you don’t want to believe in a god, so you try to rely solely on naturalistic explanations. Your post #151 really tempts me to accept this inference.

Please don’t be offended. I just personally believe that the existence of a supernatural realm allows for a much more intuitive understanding of the natural world. 

May I disagree with your final paragraph? While it may be true of some theists, it definitely does not apply to a great many others. I personally know several PhD holders sharing my own worldview who have made (and are making) meaningful contributions to, and are respected in, their respective scientific fields. One, believe it or not, has actually made contributions to a standard university-level biology textbook.

To reassure you, we do not believe that every “freaky” thing “can’t have a natural explanation." We believe that God created the world in an orderly, predictable, and knowable manner. This actually pushes us even more to investigate the natural world. Every scientific discovery allows us to know a little bit more of our God's greatness.

Again, I don’t mean to offend you. I understand you think I have a wacky perspective on life, and I respect the conclusions you’ve made.

I did take a brief look at your nicely designed website. Honestly, I appreciated your keyboard videos the most! Keep up the good work. I happen to be an avid classical pianist myself.

[robvalue]

You're most welcome! Thanks for taking the time to appreciate my perspective.

I'm not offended at all. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or indeed anyone to agree with me I simply make my case, and I respect everyone's right to construct whatever world view they think is the best.

I think you misunderstand me somewhat, I'm not dismissing supernatural explanations, I'm saying we can't logically conclude them. There could be supernatural stuff going on all the time, involved in every detail of our reality. I don't deny this. I'm just saying we can't demonstrate that there is at the moment. By my definitions, as soon as you demonstrate it, it's not supernatural; which is why I don't use a definition that relies on our current knowledge and technology. If anyone is of the opinion that there are supernatural things going on, I have no problem with that at all. It's not an unreasonable blanket statement. My problem is when people start telling me details about them that they can't possibly know; that is when I feel they have abandoned logic.

People can, as you say, go on to do great things with a belief in the supernatural. That simple belief is no hindrance in itself; it's a probability judgement I suppose. So I'm not sure what you mean by disagreeing with my last paragraph I may not have explained myself well. Even people with what I would call completely irrational beliefs can still be much cleverer than me and discover amazing things. It's just that those irrational beliefs were not part of the tools they used for discovery, except as you say as maybe motivating factors. I'm not trying to say all your beliefs must be entirely logical or else you are a failure and can't do stuff. Sorry if I came across that way. But if someone just says, "God did it all" and leaves it at that, then that is a severe hindrance to the desire to learn. I'm not accusing you of that at all though.

My approach is simply pragmatic, in that if there are supernatural causations or events, in the past or the present, we can't learn about them.

Thanks very much for checking out my website! I'm glad you like it Cool, another pianist, excellent I used to have lessons when I was younger but I got bored, and now I just play for fun.

[robvalue]

This all got me thinking.

Let's say there is a supernatural being, and it wants to communicate with me. It could use whatever funny powers it has to write messages in the air, right in front of me. It would be manipulating the natural world. I couldn't see the being itself, because our light particles cannot bounce off it.

Now. I could speak back, and let's say it could hear me. (Not entirely sure how, if our sound waves cannot affect the supernatural...) It could then "talk" back to me by moulding sound waves in our natural reality, so I hear a voice. In this way, I could communicate with this supernatural being.

But here's the problem. I can't know for sure what is causing these messages or sounds. Since they are entirely natural, I can't distinguish between a supernatural being causing them, or some natural being/force using technology I've never experienced. Except for appealing to incredulity, I cannot logically deduce it's from supernatural causation. There may well be amazing powerful beings that are natural but I can't see or experience in any normal way, which could perform such feats. And maybe one day we would create the technology to be able to measure and experience these natural beings. But if they are supernatural, then we never can. And we can't know that we will never be able to interact with the previously mentioned hypothetical supernatural being; hence it remains a mystery whether it is or is not natural.

This all rests on my personal definition of supernatural from my website. If instead you simply refer to what is known at any particular time, then any unexplainable thing could be called supernatural as a placeholder, although I don't see the point. It's just another way of saying unexplained.

[TubbyTubby]

I think you're going to think your brain into meltdown. The sun's shining - a rare thing for us UKers, grab a cold beer and soak it in.

[robvalue]

Haha I can't drink but I have a nice cold Irn Bru

We've just been out for a walk with the dog and it's fucking roasting! Too hot to be outside anymore, I'm getting blasted with a fan!

[TubbyTubby]

Haha I can't drink but I have a nice cold Irn Bru

That's grim, I'll pour a double measure and drink it for both of us.

Cheers & fuck the supernatural.