Thoughts On The Supernatural Realm

[Politesse]

Serves me right trying to have an intelligent conversation about religious cosmology with an atheist, haha. You'd think I'd learn after all these years.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Serves me right trying to have an intelligent conversation about religious cosmology with an atheist, haha. You'd think I'd learn after all these years.

Hope springs eternal.

It's that you are using the word realm like remez uses the word beginning in his KCA. Supernatural spookiness can be said to have lots of different realms, but how do they differ? That's the important part. The natural realm has lots of different natural realms but they are all composed of the same naturalness. The realm of the moon's surface is quite alien to the realm of Earth but it's all natural. This is how supernatural realms work, except that they're fictional, unlike the realms of the earth and moon.

 

[steve_bank]

The RCC especially is the supernatural.

Demons, evill spirits. exorcisms, holy water curing disease, saints that perform miracles while dead and more.

I could look up a definition. Supernatural to me is generally said to be powers and forces beyond what we call natural science. Spoken words in a spell having the power to affect reality and people.

A lot of the RCC rituals outside of the church they call magic and occult. In the RCC god grants priests occult powers.

I knew an evangelical who made trips to a faith healing center in North California. He invited me to a private meeting of about 20 people in an outbuilding. They had been meeting for decades.

Musicians playing and singing. People going into a trance and then others interpreting what was experienced. When moved by the spirt reading and interpreting random pieces of scripture. Laying of hands for healing.

It was actually a pleasant experience. Kids running around playing.

The guy insisted faith healing was real and cited examples, but he never witnessed it. Someone in the group said after an echo cardiogram he was told he had dangerously thin heart walls. When they opened him up it was not so bad. He attributed to faith healing as an example for me.

Still trying to figure out exactly what a Pagan-Christian is. Must have some interesting rituals.

 

[Tharmas]

[Human imagination is] A powerful thing indeed! Our ember of the divine spark. My job would be very boring without it.

Have you ever read any William Blake? A Christian mystic you might call him, although tending towards pantheism, like a lot of Christian mystics IMHO.

The imagination is not a state: it is the human existence itself.

The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing that stands in the way. Some see nature all ridicule and deformity... and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself.

...as in your own Bosom you bear your Heaven And Earth, & all you behold, tho it appears Without it is Within In your Imagination of which this World of Mortality is but a Shadow.

 

[Politesse]

Have you ever read any William Blake? A Christian mystic you might call him, although tending towards pantheism, like a lot of Christian mystics IMHO.

The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing that stands in the way. Some see nature all ridicule and deformity... and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself.

...as in your own Bosom you bear your Heaven And Earth, & all you behold, tho it appears Without it is Within In your Imagination of which this World of Mortality is but a Shadow.

Yes, used to read a lot of Blake in my college years. I suppose it shows!

 

[Politesse]

Still trying to figure out exactly what a Pagan-Christian is. Must have some interesting rituals.

More fun together than either are apart, I assure you.

 

[steve_bank]

A professor I had for philosophy of religion stared out in a seminary and switched to philosophy. His specialty was Christian mysticism.

As he put it there have been a number of mystical Christian factions generally suppressed by the RCC.

In Egypt and Greece there are isolated Christian mystic groups. One of the more known is a group that lives on the top of a rock. Only way up is a rope hoist.

Another I saw a show on is an open community of Eastern tradition. They fish, grow food, make icons for tourists, and practice what we would call mystic practices. Mediation, chanting.

In the same show an Egyptian Christian mystic hermit living in a cave on a mountain. He described walking around with god.

You might say modern protectant Christianity is a façade with little substance compared to other traditions. They know the words but not the meaning.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A professor I had for philosophy of religion stared out in a seminary and switched to philosophy. His specialty was Christian mysticism.

As he put it there have been a number of mystical Christian factions generally suppressed by the RCC.

In Egypt and Greece there are isolated Christian mystic groups. One of the more known is a group that lives on the top of a rock. Only way up is a rope hoist.

Another I saw a show on is an open community of Eastern tradition. They fish, grow food, make icons for tourists, and practice what we would call mystic practices. Mediation, chanting.

In the same show an Egyptian Christian mystic hermit living in a cave on a mountain. He described walking around with god.

You might say modern protectant Christianity is a façade with little substance compared to other traditions. They know the words but not the meaning.

There are different cults of woo but it's all woo if it makes unevidenced claims. I don't think meditation is woo, and prayer is a form of meditation. Maybe I need to walk to the gravesite and have a conversation with a family member because it relaxes me. That's not woo. It's no different than taking a walk in the forest and talking to trees, birds and waterfalls.

 

[atrib]

Serves me right trying to have an intelligent conversation about religious cosmology with an atheist, haha. You'd think I'd learn after all these years.

There is no such thing as "religious cosmology". Cosmology is science, while religion is dogma. The domains do not intersect; in fact, they are often diametrically opposed.

 

[Politesse]

Serves me right trying to have an intelligent conversation about religious cosmology with an atheist, haha. You'd think I'd learn after all these years.

There is no such thing as "religious cosmology". Cosmology is science, while religion is dogma. The domains do not intersect; in fact, they are often diametrically opposed.

Religious cosmology

 

[Treedbear]

Serves me right trying to have an intelligent conversation about religious cosmology with an atheist, haha. You'd think I'd learn after all these years.

There is no such thing as "religious cosmology". Cosmology is science, while religion is dogma. The domains do not intersect; in fact, they are often diametrically opposed.

Religious cosmology

There's a good explanation of the difference between them here. The term cosmology nominally seems to imply physical cosmology. But a broader definition seems to include religious cosmology even though it seems to conflict with the former at the most basic and fundamental level. Still they both address the origin of the universe. Physical cosmology begins with effect and tries to derive the cause. Religious cosmology assumes the cause and tries to infer effect. Religious cosmology does seem to (IMHO) be an expropriation of the original meaning.

 

[Politesse]

Religious cosmology

There's a good explanation of the difference between them here. The term cosmology nominally seems to imply physical cosmology. But a broader definition seems to include religious cosmology even though it seems to conflict with the former at the most basic and fundamental level. Still they both address the origin of the universe. Physical cosmology begins with effect and tries to derive the cause. Religious cosmology assumes the cause and tries to infer effect. Religious cosmology does seem to (IMHO) be an expropriation of the original meaning.

Well, fine then. Call it a worldview or whatever you like, if the word "cosmology" causes offense. It should be clear enough what I am referring to, in any case. It is true that the term "cosmology" was not used in reference to this concept before the Renaissance years, but then, neither was "religion" or "supernatural", so we're really just making word soup for little gain.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Well, fine then. Call it a worldview or whatever you like, if the word "cosmology" causes offense. It should be clear enough what I am referring to, in any case. It is true that the term "cosmology" was not used in reference to this concept before the Renaissance years, but then, neither was "religion" or "supernatural", so we're really just making word soup for little gain.

Sorry to intervene, but my philosophy requires that I have clarity in the meaning of terms. And no offense intended or taken. Just an interesting diversion in the discussion. I had already known what you meant.

 

[atrib]

Serves me right trying to have an intelligent conversation about religious cosmology with an atheist, haha. You'd think I'd learn after all these years.

There is no such thing as "religious cosmology". Cosmology is science, while religion is dogma. The domains do not intersect; in fact, they are often diametrically opposed.

Religious cosmology

I understand what you are saying, and I stand by what I said. Religious people sometimes try to clothe their dogmatic beliefs in pseudo-scientific jargon, in the hope that doing so will add credibility to said beliefs. While this strategy may work with a target demographic comprised of religiously biased, scientifically illiterate/under-educated people, it is equivocation at best. Cosmology is a branch of scientific study, which relies on observation, testing and rigorous peer review standards. While creation stories are dogma, accepted solely only on the basis of some authority figure or text. The distinction is not subtle, and it is important we take note of this distinction when using terms like "religious cosmology".

 

[Politesse]

Religious cosmology

I understand what you are saying, and I stand by what I said. Religious people sometimes try to clothe their dogmatic beliefs in pseudo-scientific jargon, in the hope that doing so will add credibility to said beliefs. While this strategy may work with a target demographic comprised of religiously biased, scientifically illiterate/under-educated people, it is equivocation at best. Cosmology is a branch of scientific study, which relies on observation, testing and rigorous peer review standards. While creation stories are dogma, accepted solely only on the basis of some authority figure or text. The distinction is not subtle, and it is important we take note of this distinction when using terms like "religious cosmology".

I concede that what you describe is probably how most English-speaking atheists would think of the distinction.

Cosmology is still not entirely or even really partially a branch of philosophy, if we define only the scientific discipline as being worthy of the name "cosmology", as all philosophical explorations of cosmology that do not take place in a laboratory would also be excluded in that case.

I would like to solemnly assure you that I am not part of a religious conspiracy to claim legitimacy through the co-option of secular terminology. I am merely trying to communicate, and I admit that get a bit annoyed with rhetorical games when they substitute for, rather than append, discussion of the topic at hand.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I concede that what you describe is probably how most English-speaking atheists would think of the distinction.

Could you expand on that thought? Do Brits and Americans have a different understanding of cosmology than the French and Germans?

Cosmology is still not entirely or even really partially a branch of philosophy, if we define only the scientific discipline as being worthy of the name "cosmology", as all philosophical explorations of cosmology that do not take place in a laboratory would also be excluded in that case.

So if I take cosmology as natural philosophy you must be saying that I am missing a large part of the cosmological discussion?

I would like to solemnly assure you that I am not part of a religious conspiracy to claim legitimacy through the co-option of secular terminology. I am merely trying to communicate, and I admit that get a bit annoyed with rhetorical games when they substitute for, rather than append, discussion of the topic at hand.

Just chatting am I. I don't know what religious conspiracies are. Concepts like Santa and Tooth Fairies can be viewed as conspiracies with a temporary purpose, but I don't think religion is the same thing, obviously.

 

[Politesse]

Could you expand on that thought? Do Brits and Americans have a different understanding of cosmology than the French and Germans?

I have no idea, and indeed am not qualified to comment on the nature of German academic divisions. I speak a bit of French, but not enough to know whether "cosmology" and "cosmologie" have exactly the same connotations or not.

So if I take cosmology as natural philosophy you must be saying that I am missing a large part of the cosmological discussion?

No, and I don't even see how that would follow.

 

[atrib]

Religious cosmology

I understand what you are saying, and I stand by what I said. Religious people sometimes try to clothe their dogmatic beliefs in pseudo-scientific jargon, in the hope that doing so will add credibility to said beliefs. While this strategy may work with a target demographic comprised of religiously biased, scientifically illiterate/under-educated people, it is equivocation at best. Cosmology is a branch of scientific study, which relies on observation, testing and rigorous peer review standards. While creation stories are dogma, accepted solely only on the basis of some authority figure or text. The distinction is not subtle, and it is important we take note of this distinction when using terms like "religious cosmology".

I concede that what you describe is probably how most English-speaking atheists would think of the distinction.

Cosmology is still not entirely or even really partially a branch of philosophy, if we define only the scientific discipline as being worthy of the name "cosmology", as all philosophical explorations of cosmology that do not take place in a laboratory would also be excluded in that case.

Religion and science rely on epistemological processes that are diametrically opposed to each other - it is not just a matter of what takes place in a lab. Great leaps of our understanding have been achieved through so-called though experiments, but in order to be considered science, the thought experiments have to lead to the development of scientific models that make predictions that can be tested. With modern science, the philosophical underpinnings of the process are naturalistic, because we have learned that a naturalistic epistemology produces the best results. The philosophical underpinnings of religion are very different, and based on the assumption that we can infer facts about the supernatural simply by thinking about things, without the need to actually go out and look at the world and test our inferences.

I would like to solemnly assure you that I am not part of a religious conspiracy to claim legitimacy through the co-option of secular terminology. I am merely trying to communicate, and I admit that get a bit annoyed with rhetorical games when they substitute for, rather than append, discussion of the topic at hand.

I understand. We are just talking.

 

[Politesse]

Religion and science rely on epistemological processes that are diametrically opposed to each other - it is not just a matter of what takes place in a lab. Great leaps of our understanding have been achieved through so-called though experiments, but in order to be considered science, the thought experiments have to lead to the development of scientific models that make predictions that can be tested. With modern science, the philosophical underpinnings of the process are naturalistic, because we have learned that a naturalistic epistemology produces the best results. The philosophical underpinnings of religion are very different, and based on the assumption that we can infer facts about the supernatural simply by thinking about things, without the need to actually go out and look at the world and test our inferences.

This may be a topic of its own accord, but I'm not sure I agree that "religion", used as it is in this forum as a catch-all term for almost anything that isn't atheism, is a single methodology or epistemology about which one could reasonably generalize. Science is, and although there are many permutations of the scientific method and how it applies to various subjects, there is also a rigorous literature on the philosophy of science that more or less consistently describe what common assumptions do and must guide scientific exploration.

The same is not true of religion, because religion is both hazily defined to begin with and also an extremely heterogeneous group of practices, beliefs, and entities. I do not agree that religion must be diametrically opposed to scientific exploration, any more than the connected idea of philosophy must be diametrically to scientific exploration. Indeed, I can only imagine a very specific subset of religious people or atheists ever thinking it safe or sane to paint these two concepts as opposites. Magisteria that do not always overlap? Sure. But it's not just wrong and unnecessary for religious people to eschew science, it is quite literally dangerous for them to do so. Nor have all religious groups, ideas, and people in all times and places attempted to do anything of the sort. I am a scientist, and the social sciences are both passion and career for me. But I would never dream of claiming that scientists have some sort of a exclusive monopoly on natural inference and experimentation, or that it would be a good thing for society to so paint itself into such rigid categories. "Without need"? When is there ever no need to test one's inferences against the rubric of observable reality? No one should ever, ever feel that way, and people who do are a constant and mortal danger to all the rest of us, whether they consider themselves scientific, religious, or anything else. Your version of "religion", if followed dogmatically, would eventually kill us all. It is neither safe nor sane to ignore the material world.

There are some other problems with your paragraph, but they get into some issues of philosophy of science that would really get us off-topic, having nothing to do with the supernatural. There is such a tangle of value judgments and neutral observations in this argument of yours, that I feel we could sit down and have quite a Socratic dialogue about what you actually mean, and whether you or I quite understand what you mean. I mean, what is "the best"?