Science deals with phenomena that can be observed. As of now, there is no way to observe supernatural phenomena, like gods. Therefore, science has nothing to say about the supernatural.
-
Features
Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality
- Thread starter excreationist
- Start date
Science deals with phenomena that can be observed. As of now, there is no way to observe supernatural phenomena, like gods. Therefore, science has nothing to say about the supernatural.
ideologyhunter
Contributor
No, but we will apparently always have these people who step up and tell us we must believe in their invisible world with invisible gods, demigods, angels,saints, demons, and maybe gnomes, who knows, and another class of people who make their living telling us they know what all these characters are like and how our lives can be better if we follow their (the priesthood's) guidance. And just maybe you won't be tormented for eternity (that's one way to learn a lesson, except the knowledge ends up being pointless.) I can't see how Christianity is any different from sitting in a hut worshipping a juju stone. Except there's no TV network set up in the name of juju. Yet.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
It's a misunderstanding of both what the supernatural is as well as natural/science. Whatever can be detected is science. So if science would be able to detect anything supernatural, it would stop being supernatural. It would just be natural. By definition, supernatural is something that cannot exist. This is by the definition theologists themselves formulated. A force that doesn't interact with anything in the natural world can just be ignored, by both scientists and religious people.
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
Would you consider the concept of a poltergeist to be supernatural? They apparently can interact with the natural world....
DrZoidberg
Contributor
If it, in any way, can be detected it is natural. If it cannot be detected in any way it has no impact on this world, what so ever. If it has any interaction with the natural world, no matter how minute, it is natural, and not supernatural. The moment God got involved and nudged evolution his action is immediately included in the definition of science and is a natural force. Not supernatural force.
It comes from Aristotle's metaphysics. He described the laws of nature in his book physics, and then he fit all the other stuff into his second book, "metaphysics" a grab bag of whatever didn't fit in his first book. Metaphysics literally just means, "after physics". Meaning after the book. "Supernatural" is the same expression in Latin.
His physics book describe how the world works. His metaphysics explores the more esoteric subjects of why and what rules define physics. This is where he defines logic. But it's really just a bunch of wild speculations and philosophical musings. It doesn't have nearly the same dignity as his physics book.
More softheaded people took this Aristotelian concept and made it into... well... magic. Before Aristotle God and the actions of the gods were seen as poetry. It was inherently mysterious and defied defining. Gods were unpredictable and there was no way of knowing whether your actions would please God. God was a label we used interchangeably with "the unknown". After Aristotle philosophers started studying God like they would any scientific concept. It's this movement, (Philo of Alexandria) that invents all the concepts which later make it into Judaism, and then Christianity. None of it makes any sense. The peak of this lunacy is Thomas Aquinas. I highly recommend reading his work. To the modern, secularly schooled, reader it sounds retarded. But Thomas Aquinas was preaching to the choir, so they canonized him as a saint instead.
Bottom line, nobody has ever had anything intelligent to say about the nature of god. At any point in history. People's urge to want to know, made us fail to stop and think, at some point, which created a slew of theological treatises where it's clearly defined what needs to done to ensure entrance into Heaven. While nice for those among us who are a bit neurotic, isn't exactly helping. It's better to go back to what God used to be, a stand in for the unknown and mysterious. And just make friends with that instead.
You've said before, you want to know what the intelligent force ruling the world wants from you. No matter if that force is out there or not, you will never learn this. That information, has never in history, been forthcoming. I think it's a pretty safe bet that the various prophets who claimed divine inspiration were just full of shit, or had deluded themselves. They were just pandering to the needs and insecurities of people around them.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
You are assuming they were otherwise capable, were not schizophrenic, were not bipolar, were not manic, etc. There has been much written about these prophets and individuals that fits well with modern medical diagnoses of psychiatric disorders. Sure, some of them were frauds but many were likely experiencing the same delusional brain activity we see today, whether it be genetic or caused by lesions or be of some other origin.
James Brown
Veteran Member
Just not in any scientifically measurable way.
Does Santa Claus apparently interact with the natural world?
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Wouldn't it be interesting to facilitate a discussion among Santa believers on the subject of how his reindeer are able to fly. The more interesting observation of such an exercise would be to watch the adults who still believe in some version of woo as they listen, and think about how many would possibly "get it." Most no doubt would be quick to distinguish between child woo and adult woo, defending their adult woo in the same fashion the children are essentially defending their child woo.
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
I'm talking about the mainstream definition of supernatural not yours... (well I did ask you for your own opinion....)
e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltergeist
"...a type of ghost or spirit that is responsible for physical disturbances"
The "further reading" and "references" have two book titles with "supernatural" in their name.
The "further reading" and "references" have two book titles with "supernatural" in their name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural#Spirit
"A spirit is a supernatural being, often but not exclusively a non-physical entity; such as a ghost..."
"The supernatural encompasses supposed phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature"
James Brown
Veteran Member
I was in a nearly identical discussion about that on another board. A Creationist complained, "I'm sick of you atheists comparing belief in God with belief in Santa Claus. No rational adult believes in Santa Claus!"
DBT
Contributor
That's enough to blow a few irony meters.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
If you can see it it is a physical entity. That definition is incoherent. But I'm pretty sure the person who wrote that knew that. Since ghosts is wholly an imaginative creation who only exists in stories
It's not my definition. It's THE definition. Colloquialy people might get a bit sloppy and vague.
But the guy who defined it is Aristotle, and however you twist it around, you will always come back to Aristotle.
excreationist
Married mouth-breather
Poltergeists are apparently able to move physical objects yet I'd say they don't have a physical body (according to the tradition). Perhaps an analogy is a player moving objects around in a game of "The Sims". The player's body isn't part of the "physical" world of The Sims.
Wikipedia says: "The supernatural encompasses supposed phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature"
In the game "The Sims" the player could be considered supernatural.... "the laws of nature" would involve objects and sims within the game.
I quoted the definition of supernatural from Wikipedia....
Another definition:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural
"of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal"
I think that covers poltergeists...
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
I suppose such a person must see children as irrational.
People like their woo, both adults and children. The shortcoming with adult woo is that enough other adults rise to its defense, a behavior that allows wrong answers to persist. Unlike adults, children don't get to collectively decide which answers are correct and which answers are incorrect. If children were able to do this Santa worship would be a religion.
There are many adults possessing the intellect of a child so Santa just morphs into some other manifestation of that attraction to woo. They want Santa to be real so they make it so because now they have the power to collectively decide.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,032
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
You should say they're 'traditionally' able to move physical objects. Until one is reliably observed.
Of course, another tradition about poltergeists is their association woth young women, leading to speculation it's not a ghost, but a troubled telekinetic with an imaginary friend.
There's also debate on the physical limitations. According to several ghost hunters, ghosts can never lift any greater weight than about 100 pounds. So if the fridge door opens, and ketchup bottles fly out, it could be a ghost, but if the fridge chases you down the hall, it's a demon.
And there's always the plot twist that it's the greedy landlord using magnetism, wires, mirror projections, and other completely natural tricks to pretend poltergeists exist....
Either way, the discussion of alternative traditions and interpretations is about as compelling as comparing Federation and Klingon teleportation. 'What if' is fun, but not getting any close to actual knowledge.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Kids actually DO observe Santa so you can't think them irrational in their belief. Presents from Santa appear. Other adults are telling them that santa is on his way to bring presents and those presents are there the next day. The kids aren't so dumb.
The adult Santa, on the other hand, is like all such entities, invisible and impossible to observe, but it becomes just as apparent as the childhood santa was at the earlier age. You would think the propensity to disbelieve in fantastic childhood stories would make adult santas rare or impossible. Interestingly that isn't the case.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,150
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Not if they actually exist. "Supernatural" refers to a fiction genre -- it means when a fictional character does stuff real people couldn't do, the author "explains" it with something Harry Potterish instead of Star Trekish.
Dictionaries can't save a concept from being incoherent. What makes the "supernatural" concept incoherent is that it's circular; well, all dictionary definitions are ultimately circular. Back in the dead tree days I had a dictionary that defined "god" as "a male deity" and defined "deity" as "a god or goddess".
Dictionaries rely on their readers to break the circle, by having already acquired by some non-dictionary means an understanding of enough of the words. But in the case of "supernatural" and "natural" there's nothing to break the circle with, any more than with "god" and "deity".What's supernatural? Phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature.
What's a law of nature? A statement about what stuff does that's true of all the stuff in nature.
What's nature? The portion of reality that isn't supernatural.
Nope. When "supernatural" is applied to anything real it doesn't mean anything. Suppose you have a statement about what stuff does such as "For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction." that implies "There are no poltergeists interacting with stuff." And suppose you really have a poltergeist that really interacts with stuff. That wouldn't make your statement about what stuff does "a law of nature that's violated by poltergeists". It would make your statement about what stuff does "wrong".
Technically not true, there is evidence of organized religions and their veracity everywhere - churches, cultural artifacts, history, stories passed from person to person.
Religion is so normalized in our day to day lives that it's not surprising that people believe. If anything religion is more misleading than Santa, because we know Santa is a fun story, but religion is literally believed to be real by many, and has been for thousands of years.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
To a child there is organized santa veneration and belief everywhere too. The childhood perception of the childhood santa is exactly the same thing as the adult perception of adult santas. If you think that is not accurate I'd like to know how they are different. The adult perception of the childhood santa is certainly different than the childhood perception of the childhood santa, but that's to be expected.
Adults who take part in their organized adult santa churches and adult santa stories are perceiving just like children. The supernatural aspects of their beliefs are identical to when they were children. It's all the same, it's belief in woo. Calling it supernatural is just giving it an allegedly respectable label but it doesn't change what it is.
My main point is that as a child the childhood santa is even more real than the adult santas. The child can actually sit in Santa's lap and talk to him and Santa gets his letters and brings him gifts. Can adults do that with their gods? Do they get to sit in their laps and ask them for things and have those things appear? Not hardly.
I have a unique perspective on all this as a brother-in-law suffered brain damage at birth so that intellectually he never progressed beyond about age four. So naturally when he was in his 50s and living at home he was still utterly devoted to Santa, largely because of his mother. He only ever got past his belief when he entered a supervised group home. So I was able to watch this man in his 50s completely believing in Santa. It's identical to what adults do with their gods, their adult santas. It's exactly the same thing except that to the child there is more proof of his santa than adults have for their adult santas.