How to select which supernatural to believe?

[zebo-the-fat]

If a thing happens then it's natural (we may not understand why or how it happens but that's besides the point) Supernatural is a null word

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

if I'm retreading an old argument, I apologize - it's new ground to me.

People do this all the time, and tend not to realize it. That's why I point it out when I see it.

We're more likely to notice when it's values we don't agree with. So for example if American Christians assume that Jesus supports the Second Amendment and hates welfare, that seems like obvious projection. They are attributing their own values to God.

But when we are talking about values and methods that we ourselves like, then it may go unnoticed. We just assume that of course God would share our way of thinking and goals, because ours are the very best ones. How could a good God be different?

Both sides imagine God to be bigger versions of themselves, which may be a function that religion has always played. But it carries no persuasiveness in making a metaphysical argument.

It isn’t projection, because there is nothing there to project onto. Gods are like any other imaginary friend - we create both in a manner that shares our own values and biases.

No child has every dreamed up an imaginary playmate that didn’t have the same fears, hopes, etc as the child. God creation is no different. Gods reflect, not impose, moral codes.

Boru

[Angrboda]

Sure, as long as you acknowledge that you want to agree to disagree as your way of saying you're too febrile to simply admit you were wrong.  Number three here isn't an open door so much as it isn't a door at all.  The literature possessing characteristics similar to other literature that is not historical tells us nothing about how we "should" treat it, so you're wrong in that as well.

Wrong about what?  That atheistic naturalism is falsifiable?  

You are wrong in concluding that those would falsify naturalism and demonstrate the supernatural. You can't assume that you've accounted for all natural means of achieving the effect and so you can't therefore conclude that the effect was achieved through means that aren't natural. To argue otherwise is to say that you have complete knowledge of the possible natural means and the achievement of the effect could not be obtained through them. You don't have complete knowledge of the possible means, so you can't conclude that the effect was not achieved naturally. The means of the effect are simply unknown; they might be natural and then they might not be natural -- it's inconclusive. Acupuncture was similarly dismissed as hocum because the given explanation did not correlate with reality as known. Once it was shown that acupuncture appeared to have real effects, people began looking for a valid mechanism. They didn't just stick their fingers in their ears and say, "La la la, I can't hear you," or what you have done by declaring, "Aha, I don't know how it works, therefore it's supernatural!" That's nothing more than bad and incompetent thinking.

As for the historical record, historians often speak of probabilities; for instance, that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical individual and was crucified by Pontius Pilate is very highly certain; that he rose corporeally from the dead, went to Britain to preach, and after that, went to North America to preach to the North American Indians is far, far less certain, so uncertain, that I dismiss it, even though such is found in the historical record

That's nice. That justifies being uncertain as to the historicity of those events, not that one should view them as ahistorical. Historians come to the conclusion that the historicity of those events is uncertain, not that they are ahistorical. Since historians don't do what you did by declaring them ahistorical, your citing the practice of historians as justification is not valid or useful. Historians don't form the same sort of conclusion you did so citing them doesn't abet what you said. Dismissing them doesn't require a judgment as to the historical content of the accounts and so your dismissing them is not relevant or informative. What would be informative and relative would be your giving a rational justification for dismissing them as ahistorical. But you haven't given one yet. To put a bow on it, there is a difference between treating uncertain claims with skepticism, and denying uncertain claims due to their uncertainty. The former is proper skeptical practice. The latter is described as pseudo-skepticism by many as it has the appearance of proper skepticism while lacking the actual substance. If you google "pseudo-skepticism" you can probably find an article or two on the subject.

That a human being could, in advance, predict the exact head/tails outcome, in advance, of 100 coin tosses (or, 1000 or 10,000) and have that event ascribed to naturalistic causes is, in my opinion, abjectly absurd.  I see no reason to discuss that further.

That's swell. When you have something better than a fallacious argumentum ad lapidem then feel free to send me a postcard.

[Belacqua]

certainly anything that claims to predict the future etc... such as astrology

Agreed -- this is frustrating. It's not only unbelievable, it's even a dumbing-down of what people used to believe about the supernatural and astrology. 

Back when respectable people believed in these things, astrology was not considered supernatural at all. It was just a part of nature, and the influence of the stars and planets was thought to be part of the way the world worked. The exact method of influence wasn't clear, but then there are a lot of natural things that aren't precisely explained, even today. The powers and energies of the world were woven together and people didn't assume that planetary influence was other than part of nature. 

When explanations changed, and planetary influence was no longer believable, apparently people moved astrology into a sort of catch-all category called "supernatural," with no clear definition.

Nor was astrology generally used to predict the future. It could suggest trends and days that were more or less under the sway of the desired influences, but it wasn't as if your future was decided by the stars. It was more like the weather, or like personality tendencies which you could take account of in making plans.

Partly the modern dumbing-down comes about through a change in what the word "supernatural" means. In the old days it had a precise meaning -- unlike the modern term which seems to mean just anything that isn't science. 

People assumed that every kind of thing has a nature -- a set of characteristics or qualities, and a set of potentialities and limitations. It is the nature of a cat, for example, to eat, play, and nap, and not in the nature of a cat to fly to the moon or compose opera. If a cat did something which was over and above (super-) its nature, then that was supernatural. A person who could do more than it is the nature of people to do would be considered to have supernatural powers. So the type of thing which was called supernatural was narrowly defined, and did not include ghosts, tarot cards, etc. 

Some of the things we today call supernatural were considered to be occult -- which just means that how they function is hidden. They may well be natural, but how their nature works is not known and is perhaps unknowable. Others were considered to be natural -- again, astrology was thought to be an aspect of how nature operated.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The only occult thing I’m convinced is true is the Ouija board. I played it once and it spelled out T-H-I-S-I-S-J-U-S-T-A-G-A-M-E-Y-O-U-I-D-I-O-T.

So creepy.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

That's an impressive misrepresentation of astrology up there. I don't know who it treats with more derision - the objects of it's fantasy or it's audience.

[emjay]

certainly anything that claims to predict the future etc... such as astrology

Agreed -- this is frustrating. It's not only unbelievable, it's even a dumbing-down of what people used to believe about the supernatural and astrology. 

Back when respectable people believed in these things, astrology was not considered supernatural at all. It was just a part of nature, and the influence of the stars and planets was thought to be part of the way the world worked. The exact method of influence wasn't clear, but then there are a lot of natural things that aren't precisely explained, even today. The powers and energies of the world were woven together and people didn't assume that planetary influence was other than part of nature. 

When explanations changed, and planetary influence was no longer believable, apparently people moved astrology into a sort of catch-all category called "supernatural," with no clear definition.

Nor was astrology generally used to predict the future. It could suggest trends and days that were more or less under the sway of the desired influences, but it wasn't as if your future was decided by the stars. It was more like the weather, or like personality tendencies which you could take account of in making plans.

Partly the modern dumbing-down comes about through a change in what the word "supernatural" means. In the old days it had a precise meaning -- unlike the modern term which seems to mean just anything that isn't science. 

People assumed that every kind of thing has a nature -- a set of characteristics or qualities, and a set of potentialities and limitations. It is the nature of a cat, for example, to eat, play, and nap, and not in the nature of a cat to fly to the moon or compose opera. If a cat did something which was over and above (super-) its nature, then that was supernatural. A person who could do more than it is the nature of people to do would be considered to have supernatural powers. So the type of thing which was called supernatural was narrowly defined, and did not include ghosts, tarot cards, etc. 

Some of the things we today call supernatural were considered to be occult -- which just means that how they function is hidden. They may well be natural, but how their nature works is not known and is perhaps unknowable. Others were considered to be natural -- again, astrology was thought to be an aspect of how nature operated.

Interesting what you say about the different old world meanings of supernatural.

I think maybe your 'occult' may be a better word for what my family believe in, essentially by default, and ascribe to sorcery or the devil... just anything they don't think comes from God comes into this category, but the frustration for me just comes from them not even seeming to consider that there are simple psychological explanations for most of it. Ie even if there is occult stuff in the world... which I don't believe in obviously, but for the sake of argument.. doesn't mean all of it is, by default, when psychology explains it much better.

So does this mean you do not believe in things like divination (which I'm assuming to mean things like tarot cards, reading tea leaves and entrails etc)? Ie do you agree that any form of vague interpretation of something, regardless of what system of interpretation is used or how it came about (eg by design or by chance/evolution... probably for most of these things I'd guess a bit of both), is succeptible to perceptual bias in its fulfillment... and the vaguer/less constrained the interpretations, the easier it is to fulfill that way? Whether that be in the form of ascribing a vague statement to some concrete instance, one of many possibilities... and the vaguer it is, the more possibilities for fulfillment there are... or say for something like good and bad luck and the superstitions around that, simply becoming more aware of the predictions and that directly influencing/creating their perceptual fulfillment... eg if you're expecting bad luck you're more likely to focus on and enumerate the negative, more likely to be in a negative state that could physically and detrimentally effect your performance in some task or whatever... basically a self-fulfilling prophesy, physically and/or mentally. And vice versa for good luck, expecting good things makes you more relaxed and confident, likewise leading to better outcomes, physically and/or mentally. But even if objectively there was no difference in outcomes, perception still goes a long way, depending on how you frame things.

[Jehanne]

That a human being could, in advance, predict the exact head/tails outcome, in advance, of 100 coin tosses (or, 1000 or 10,000) and have that event ascribed to naturalistic causes is, in my opinion, abjectly absurd.  I see no reason to discuss that further.

That's swell. When you have something better than a fallacious argumentum ad lapidem then feel free to send me a postcard.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/

And, some academicians consider such to be serious science:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeto...search_Lab

By the way, do you consider the Donation of Constantine to be authentic? If so, why?

Here's an article demonstrating that Darwinian evolution can be falsified:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...disproved/

[Angrboda]

That's swell.  When you have something better than a fallacious argumentum ad lapidem then feel free to send me a postcard.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/

And, some academicians consider such to be serious science:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeto...search_Lab

By the way, do you consider the Donation of Constantine to be authentic?  If so, why?

Not sure what your point is other than, "I'm butthurt so I'm going to post an irrelevant rant," and at this point I'm not willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually have a point.

As to the Donatio, I'm skeptical of its authenticity given what little I've read of scholarly opinion but do not consider myself possessing adequate competence on the subject to render my own judgement or venture more. But this thread isn't about the Donatio, nor about my beliefs about the Donatio. Anytime you'd like to end your butthurt derail and rejoin us on the actual topic under discussion, we'd welcome your return.

[Jehanne]

You're entitled to your opinions.

But, do you consider the Donation of Constantine to be authentic?

As an atheist, I know the circumstances and/or evidences that would convince me that God exists. Other believers on this board are (I hope!) sympathetic to this POV!!

If you want to embrace positive atheism (Category 7), that would help explain why you and I (at the moment at least) are not getting along.