One simple question

[Godscreated]

How does one apply scientific methods to a being that is supernatural (outside of the natural realm). Science can only be applied to the things it can test and a supernatural being does not fall into that category. You test the natural with science that was developed within the natural and the supernatural by faith. This is why atheist and theist disagree at a basic level, the basic level for most atheist is science and the natural world and for theist it is faith in a supernatural being. For me of course the God of the Bible is whom I place my faith in. We are on opposite sides of a wall and that is where our trust will stay unless someone or thing destroys that trust, this wall most likely will not be breached by words alone but can be by anothers actions. So life goes on and we trust in what we know is right for ourselves.

[Minimalist]

How does one apply scientific methods to a being that is supernatural (outside of the natural realm).

The same way one applies scientific methods to pink unicorns or leprechauns. Insist on evidence for them before conceding they exist.

[Scented Nectar]

Evidence for the supernatural is impossible. It doesn't exist. The very moment a supernatural force or being appears/affects things, it is no longer supernatural. It now exists, just by its very existing, in nature/universes/whatever. I could never believe something is supernatural. As soon as I have reason to believe something is real at all, it becomes a part of what I consider to be natural, even when it's something that is currently (or even forever) unexplainable by any of us humans.

Supernatural things cannot logically exist. As soon as they exist, their supernaturalness is absent.

[Purple Rabbit]

That is nothing but a redefinition of terms and comparing the old definition with the new one would be a logical fallacy.

So, I wonder, according to you is string theory supernatural now and maybe natural tomorrow?

[tavarish]

How does one apply scientific methods to a being that is supernatural (outside of the natural realm).

You wouldn't.

Science can only be applied to the things it can test and a supernatural being does not fall into that category.

Exactly.

You test the natural with science that was developed within the natural and the supernatural by faith.

Faith isn't a method to test claims. Faith is necessary only when you have an utter lack of empirical evidence for something. You have yet to demonstrate why having faith in something is at all reasonable or reflects something that is true or demonstrable in any context.

This is why atheist and theist disagree at a basic level, the basic level for most atheist is science and the natural world and for theist it is faith in a supernatural being.

And you haven't answered the question. How do you determine what is real and what is not?

For me of course the God of the Bible is whom I place my faith in. We are on opposite sides of a wall and that is where our trust will stay unless someone or thing destroys that trust, this wall most likely will not be breached by words alone but can be by anothers actions. So life goes on and we trust in what we know is right for ourselves.

Let's make this transparent. Truth isn't something that you wish for, nor is it subjective. Truth is truth. The methodology of discovering and demonstrating that truth is the question. I don't care what you place faith in, I care why you believe this faith is at all reasonable or demonstrates your claims as truth.

---

That's circular reasoning because you really don't know for sure what reality is. It can only be consistent with your perception of reality. Needless to say that the same goes for me.

Yes, which is why I wrote "I compare it to my perception, or model of reality in such a way that bias is all but extinguished, and at the very least - irrelevant."

I missed that self doubt in your question in the OP. If there was self-doubt shouldn't it have been stated thus: "How does one determine what is real and what is not real?"

I didn't phrase it as such because it's a question pertaining to people of a certain mindset, not a general question for all. Self examination plays a part in my methodology, but it may not play a part in others'.

If by this method you mean the scientific method, your method can only assess things up to a certain point, yes. So we agree it can never reach 100% accuracy. And we might agree that your and mine method not only fails at absolutely and definitely ruling out anything, it also fails at absolutely and definitely ruling in anything.

And why would something need to be 100 percent accurate in order to be valid? Would not the consistency of such a methodology play a part in comparison to others' reasoning methods or lack thereof?

I don't deal in absolutes, nor do I know of anyone or anything that operates within such measures. Why would I then assume that my methodologies must abide by some impossible standard? Yes, I could be wrong in every aspect, but that's the beauty of the method. It allows for self examination.

Who says that disembodiment is part of it. Maybe our bodies are just an illusion and always have been.

In that case any methodology that uses empirical observations would be meaningless. Why exactly would that be preferential or beneficial to my understanding? Also, if I am the product of an illusion, how would I demonstrate this? We rely on certain assumptions for survival and growth stemming from our perceptions of reality. We wouldn't have gotten very far as a species if we wholeheartedly believed that we are the product of a dream and everything we do is either inconsequential or illusory.

You're right that the mind in a jar as of yet is not within reach of measurement. And indeed that is a serious problem with it just as with the god concept. But those considerations are not about ultimate truth, it is nothing but a practical consideration.

And why would ultimate truth be necessary in the limited scope of human perception? How would that even be possible?

Even if we are in some Matrix, the reality that we can perceive is all we can make statements about, untill shown otherwise.

I don't see issue in this. The fact that we can perceive doesn't give us any insight on how to perceive it. My question was directed at those with a supernatural belief to justify their ideology in a way that was reasonably consistent with their perceptions of reality. It's asking them, in any context, to share why they think a certain concept/deity/being/anything is real or not.

This is a relative practical principle. Ultimate truth is not involved here.

Nor should it be in a conversation such as this. When you go for existential concepts such as ultimate truth and absolute knowledge, you're drawing a line directly between "vague" and "impossible", then walking it. It's quite futile.

There is no ultimate answer for both atheists and theists. In the end there only is a normative distinction in accepting or rejecting the scientific method.

Is there an ultimate answer for anything at all? Did I ask for absolute certainty?

[tackattack]

---

http://usualrhetoric.blogspot.com/2010/0...eists.html

I wrote it because Arcanus doesn't choose answer.


An Open letter to theists

In regards to religion, my stance is relatively strong, but not at all immovable or impervious to persuasion. Having said this, I have come across a subject within the realm of belief that I observe to be inconsistent with the actions and ideologies of those who abide by it.

To present this issue, I have a single question to ask to theists (preferably those who believe in a personal God). The question is derived from a discussion I've had with the authors of the blog "Aristophrenium".

They weren't kind enough to give me an answer at all, so I hope to get some sort of response from a similarly level-headed theist regarding this matter.

Here it is:

"How do you determine what is real and what is not real?"


I suspect this will give me more insight into the matter, and will accurately illustrate exactly where our point of disagreement is.

---

In response ot the OP, sorry I just now saw this.
-Firstly I self reflect to ensure I am in a normal state (not drunk, high, medically disabled, etc.)
-Then I interpret by what senses I am perceiving the thing.
-Then I try and use a seperate sense to verify it's "realness".
-If none is available I seek another observer.
-If none is available I file it away as a strange and wonderous brief lapse in reality and store in in my memory
-If it happens again or can be replicated, I determine it more real than delusion.

[Purple Rabbit]

If by this method you mean the scientific method, your method can only assess things up to a certain point, yes. So we agree it can never reach 100% accuracy. And we might agree that your and mine method not only fails at absolutely and definitely ruling out anything, it also fails at absolutely and definitely ruling in anything.

And why would something need to be 100 percent accurate in order to be valid? Would not the consistency of such a methodology play a part in comparison to others' reasoning methods or lack thereof?

Oh, I would prefer that 100% if it was feasible, because the difference between 99,99% and 100% might hold important clues and even might change all foregoing conclusions. But as I stated before, the 100% option is not possible. Indeed I agree that given the fact that we have no free access to 100% abolute truth a comparison of alternative methods should include intrinsic consistency.

I don't deal in absolutes, nor do I know of anyone or anything that operates with. in such measures. Why would I then assume that my methodologies must abide by some impossible standard? Yes, I could be wrong in every aspect, but that's the beauty of the method. It allows for self examination.

Some religious deal in absolutes for sure. And be assured that I am not demanding absoluteness of you. But given the fact that you and I cannot deal in absolutes we should be aware that our position on truth is relative and that in that sense we can claim no guarantee from our preferred method (science) itself. Only when we accept basic practical assumptions like "does it work" we can distinguish the performance of the scientific method from other methods. IOW there is no absolute benchmark on truth and the scientific method can claim none, not meaning by stating this that I presently assume you are of different opinion. However I think that "self examination" won't bring you any nearer to truth and it is not a part of the scientific method.

Who says that disembodiment is part of it. Maybe our bodies are just an illusion and always have been.

In that case any methodology that uses empirical observations would be meaningless. Why exactly would that be preferential or beneficial to my understanding? Also, if I am the product of an illusion, how would I demonstrate this? We rely on certain assumptions for survival and growth stemming from our perceptions of reality. We wouldn't have gotten very far as a species if we wholeheartedly believed that we are the product of a dream and everything we do is either inconsequential or illusory.

The point is that if the mind in a jar is true but we don't have access to that truth at all, meaning that it doesn't show up in our perception of reality at all, that it would not render empirical observations meaningless because it is the only type of meaning we would be able to constitute. But I agree that we rely on assumptions.

You're right that the mind in a jar as of yet is not within reach of measurement. And indeed that is a serious problem with it just as with the god concept. But those considerations are not about ultimate truth, it is nothing but a practical consideration.

And why would ultimate truth be necessary in the limited scope of human perception? How would that even be possible?

I am not asserting that only 100% truth is enough, see the above.

Even if we are in some Matrix, the reality that we can perceive is all we can make statements about, untill shown otherwise.

I don't see issue in this. The fact that we can perceive doesn't give us any insight on how to perceive it. My question was directed at those with a supernatural belief to justify their ideology in a way that was reasonably consistent with their perceptions of reality. It's asking them, in any context, to share why they think a certain concept/deity/being/anything is real or not.

To what purpose? To find that they have some other "method" (e.g. divinely installed knowledge) does not mean that you can compare succes rates of methods in terms of truth.

This is a relative practical principle. Ultimate truth is not involved here.

Nor should it be in a conversation such as this. When you go for existential concepts such as ultimate truth and absolute knowledge, you're drawing a line directly between "vague" and "impossible", then walking it. It's quite futile.

That's a normative statement. IMO some if not all religious do claim absolute truth, so it already is involved into this kind of discussion.

There is no ultimate answer for both atheists and theists. In the end there only is a normative distinction in accepting or rejecting the scientific method.

Is there an ultimate answer for anything at all? Did I ask for absolute certainty?

You did ask to draw a line between true and false didn't you?

[tavarish]

Oh, I would prefer that 100% if it was feasible, because the difference between 99,99% and 100% might hold important clues and even might change all foregoing conclusions. But as I stated before, the 100% option is not possible. Indeed I agree that given the fact that we have no free access to 100% abolute truth a comparison of alternative methods should include intrinsic consistency.

Agreed.

Some religious deal in absolutes for sure. And be assured that I am not demanding absoluteness of you. But given the fact that you and I cannot deal in absolutes we should be aware that our position on truth is relative and that in that sense we can claim no guarantee from our preferred method (science) itself.

If some religious individuals deal in absolutes, they still have all their work ahead of them to demonstrate what this information is, how it is an absolute truth, and why it is at all relevant to subjective perceptions within reality. Assertions aren't demonstrations.

However I think that "self examination" won't bring you any nearer to truth and it is not a part of the scientific method.

Testing your hypothesis is definitely part of the scientific method, including any null or alternative hypotheses you may have. This, in essence, is self-examination and demands that you review your own methodology in such a way that it is consistently demonstrable and relatively free of bias. In order to preserve the accuracy of the method, you must examine and assess the way in which you use it.

Who says that disembodiment is part of it. Maybe our bodies are just an illusion and always have been.

In that case any methodology that uses empirical observations would be meaningless. Why exactly would that be preferential or beneficial to my understanding? Also, if I am the product of an illusion, how would I demonstrate this? We rely on certain assumptions for survival and growth stemming from our perceptions of reality. We wouldn't have gotten very far as a species if we wholeheartedly believed that we are the product of a dream and everything we do is either inconsequential or illusory.

The point is that if the mind in a jar is true but we don't have access to that truth at all, meaning that it doesn't show up in our perception of reality at all, that it would not render empirical observations meaningless because it is the only type of meaning we would be able to constitute. But I agree that we rely on assumptions.

I don't quite understand that at all. The magic of science is that is a method of discovery and explanation above all else. Our limited scope is expanding daily, and the only thing guiding this is doubt and a need for observable, testable examples of the world around us. I wouldn't say the mind in a jar isabsolutely false and will always be false, but I will say that I haven't been shown any evidence or reasoning to suggest that there is a mind in the jar. This lack of evidence leads me to say that in practice, I can regard the jar as being devoid of a disembodied mind within my understanding of reality, as it has zero impact or relevance of my understanding of the entity in question. For all intents and purposes, there is no demonstrable mind in the jar.

When I said "render empirical observations meaningless", I was replying to the illusion you cited. if this is all an illusion, nothing we can ever discover will ever be relevant to anything of merit, as it is deceptive by nature.

To what purpose? To find that they have some other "method" (e.g. divinely installed knowledge) does not mean that you can compare succes rates of methods in terms of truth.

You can definitely compare which methods are more readily demonstrable, and which ones comport with an objective reality, rather than something that is based wholly on subjective interpretation. The purpose was to determine if their method of determining what is real is consistent with other claims and aspects of their life. This is evaluating their methodology using their own standard, not necessarily mine.

This is a relative practical principle. Ultimate truth is not involved here.

Nor should it be in a conversation such as this. When you go for existential concepts such as ultimate truth and absolute knowledge, you're drawing a line directly between "vague" and "impossible", then walking it. It's quite futile.

That's a normative statement. IMO some if not all religious do claim absolute truth, so it already is involved into this kind of discussion.

Yes, but a claim is not a demonstration. Saying something is absolutely true is meaningless because it holds no merit without credible evidence, at least not if you want to persuade someone with such an argument.

There is no ultimate answer for both atheists and theists. In the end there only is a normative distinction in accepting or rejecting the scientific method.

Is there an ultimate answer for anything at all? Did I ask for absolute certainty?

You did ask to draw a line between true and false didn't you?

I asked for the method of determining whether something is real or not, which is based on subjective perception. No ultimate anything here.

[Purple Rabbit]

If some religious individuals deal in absolutes, they still have all their work ahead of them to demonstrate what this information is, how it is an absolute truth, and why it is at all relevant to subjective perceptions within reality. Assertions aren't demonstrations.

True, but that is your opinion. The claim of some religious is, that there is another way of knowing that does not need these "demonstrations". For them demonstrations only are needed in debate with others not to undergird their belief.

However I think that "self examination" won't bring you any nearer to truth and it is not a part of the scientific method.

Testing your hypothesis is definitely part of the scientific method, including any null or alternative hypotheses you may have. This, in essence, is self-examination and demands that you review your own methodology in such a way that it is consistently demonstrable and relatively free of bias. In order to preserve the accuracy of the method, you must examine and assess the way in which you use it.

Self-examination for me has a different meaning, I guess you meant critical re-examination, but let's forget about the semantics. Critical re-examination is part of the scientific method, bymeans of peer review for instance.

The point is that if the mind in a jar is true but we don't have access to that truth at all, meaning that it doesn't show up in our perception of reality at all, that it would not render empirical observations meaningless because it is the only type of meaning we would be able to constitute. But I agree that we rely on assumptions.

I don't quite understand that at all. The magic of science is that is a method of discovery and explanation above all else. Our limited scope is expanding daily, and the only thing guiding this is doubt and a need for observable, testable examples of the world around us. I wouldn't say the mind in a jar isabsolutely false and will always be false, but I will say that I haven't been shown any evidence or reasoning to suggest that there is a mind in the jar. This lack of evidence leads me to say that in practice, I can regard the jar as being devoid of a disembodied mind within my understanding of reality, as it has zero impact or relevance of my understanding of the entity in question. For all intents and purposes, there is no demonstrable mind in the jar.

When I said "render empirical observations meaningless", I was replying to the illusion you cited. if this is all an illusion, nothing we can ever discover will ever be relevant to anything of merit, as it is deceptive by nature.

Reread that a couple of times but can't detect any disagreement here. When the mind in a jar has zero impact on my understanding of reality than all empirical observations I do within my understanding of reality are meaningfull within that reality and it will be all meaning that I will ever have.

That's a normative statement. IMO some if not all religious do claim absolute truth, so it already is involved into this kind of discussion.

Yes, but a claim is not a demonstration. Saying something is absolutely true is meaningless because it holds no merit without credible evidence, at least not if you want to persuade someone with such an argument.

That also is a normative statement since it your opinion that a claim is in need for some public demonstration. I cannot stress enough that I agree with you on this but it still is opinion not fact.

[Godscreated]

[quote=travish Faith isn't a method to test claims. Faith is necessary only when you have an utter lack of empirical evidence for something. You have yet to demonstrate why having faith in something is at all reasonable or reflects something that is true or demonstrable in any context.

Why isn't faith a method to test? You use faith every day, when you sit in a chair you have faith that it's going to hold you up. When you sit down with someone behind the chair you have faith that he/she will not pull that chair out from under you and cause you to bruise your butt.Faith is more a part of everyone's life than we think about