Lets take a little break from politics and have us a real atheist conversation.
Personally, I’m open to the idea of the existence of supernatural phenomena, and I believe mainstream religions are actually complicated incomplete stories full of misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and half-truths.
Basically, I think that these stories are not as simple and straightforward as they seem to be to religious people. I feel like there is a lot more to them. Concluding that all these stories are just made up or came out of nowhere is kind of hard for me.
I think it’s hard to find “true experiences with the supernatural” credible because even if the person believes it happened: humans make for awful sensors. They might feel warm when they’re cold or vice versa. They regularly see things that don’t exist. More than half of us appear to be some kind of moron.
And why would a ghost be unmeasurable? Why could something be truly ethereal when everything ever measured or recorded is not? Plus, the seemingly random limitations on any sort of fairy, ghost, or deity make it pretty much dead in the water as far as theories go. Imagine this, you’re some kind of land-god of wealth and/or stealing and potentially eating babies. But you go years or decades without fulfilling your own theme or being seen by humans? And you can’t leave your territory as defined by human maps like you need permission from city councilmen?
All of this on top of the belief I hold that life is a culmination of billions of tiny mechanisms that, upon systemic failure, result in something akin to gears no longer turning in a clock means: either machinery and electronics all have “souls” or humans don’t. Where would you draw the line? Do waterfalls have souls? The grand canyon? Dogs?
So pretty unlikely, all things considered.
People do not understand that visual hallucinations can happen to anyone when they are sober. Our brains are not perfect machines.
Overall, 84.8 percent of the volunteers that took part in the study reported having experienced some form of anomalous visual experiences in their life. More than a third of them (37.8 percent) reported that they had experienced an actual visual hallucination similar to what a patient with a psychotic disorder may experience. When the scientists analyzed the additional questions of whether an experience would agree with a clinical definition of visual hallucinations, about 17.4 percent of volunteers had experienced a hallucination that met these criteria.
And I’m guessing the other 15.2 either didn’t remember or didn’t really understand the question.
It’s even more a problem with hearing things that aren’t there or, far more commonly, just hearing something but misidentifying it. The whole EVP thing that “paranormal investigators” are so fond of is all about hearing a sound and just assuming that sound is a voice because of our flawed brains (and flawed ears).
Humans seem to be wired to be like this. That’s why pareidolia is a thing.
If something has observable properties, then it is part of nature, as we could observe it, model it, and include it into our scientific theories. If something has no observable properties, then it is not distinguishable from something that does not exist. Supernatural phenomena thus, tautologically, are not distinguishable from something that does not exist. Indeed, I would go as far as even saying the definition of nonexistence is to lack observable properties. That is why i se supernatural phenomena as a no-go. It either lacks observable properties, so it does not exist as a matter of definition, or it has observable properties, meaning it is just natural and not supernatural.
Funny, I was saying a simplified version of this to my daughter yesterday: We can’t see the wind, but we can build a wind detector since the wind has an observable effect on the universe. We can’t see atoms, but we can build an atom detector since atoms have an observable effect on the universe. We can’t build a god detector or a ghost detector because gods and ghosts have no observable effect on the universe.
Ghosts and gods and magic simply do not fit in with how we have observed the universe working and they would cause a lot of basic problems with things we can observe, yet they do not. The simplest explanation is that there are no such things as gods or ghosts or magic.
We are overzealous pattern recognition machines.
The proto-hominids who saw a tiger in the bush when there wasn’t one had a higher chance of passing on their genes than the ones who didn’t see a tiger when there was one.
And now their descendants see tigers in the stars.
If LLMs have taught us anything about pattern recognition machines it’s that when they don’t find a pattern to match they don’t say they have no matches… they just pull a somewhat fitting match off their arse, or an outright random one. They hallucinate.
And that’s even before we get to our actual minds. We’ve got pattern recognition machinery in our retinas. What reaches our brain is already highly processed (to make tigers easier to spot), and then it gets into the visual processing part of the brain, which uses sophisticated autocompletion using previously stored patterns to fill in the blanks and highlight anything remotely interesting… often including things that aren’t there (see optical illusions, for instance). That’s what we “see”, and then we get to make up stuff based on that (and the same probably applies to our other senses, too).
Add to that that we’re notoriously bad at recognising randomness (or lack thereof). A coin falls heads up four times in a row and we suspect shenanigans, as if it wasn’t as likely or unlikely as any other pattern.
We see some craters that look like a smiley face (pattern recognition strikes again) on Mars and we think it’s a fake picture (it’s 2024, after all), or a Watchmen reference. And when we learn it’s actually real our hair stands up. We get goosebumps. It can’t be natural. Must be super natural. Aliens. Gods. Ancient civilizations. All while we ignore the thousands of craters that don’t look like a smiley face.
But, hey, at least we’re not getting eaten by hidden tigers, so win some lose some, I guess.
“Fifty thousand years ago there were these three guys spread out across the plain and they each heard something rustling in the grass. The first one thought it was a tiger, and he ran like hell, and it was a tiger but the guy got away. The second one thought the rustling was a tiger and he ran like hell, but it was only the wind and his friends all laughed at him for being such a chickenshit. But the third guy thought it was only the wind, so he shrugged it off and the tiger had him for dinner. And the same thing happened a million times across ten thousand generations - and after a while everyone was seeing tigers in the grass even when there were`t any tigers, because even chickenshits have more kids than corpses do. And from those humble beginnings we learn to see faces in the clouds and portents in the stars, to see agency in randomness, because natural selection favours the paranoid. Even here in the 21st century we can make people more honest just by scribbling a pair of eyes on the wall with a Sharpie. Even now we are wired to believe that unseen things are watching us.”
― Peter Watts, Echopraxia
I’d recommend Manly P Halls book on “secret teachings”. I think alot of “religion” is just philosophy + myth.
“Supernatural” is just unexplained, or misunderstood, natural phenomena.
I’ve spent years working in supposedly haunted buildings (as security.)
the guy who loves sharing his ghost story really didn’t appreciate being told that the “fleeting man” he saw apparitions of, were his own reflection (specifically in a corner window of a conference room, or in certain circumstances, in double-paned windows.)
Nor did he appreciate being told the ghost “walking” down the stairwell was really just the fire sprinkler standpipe clunking against the stairs as the building cooled off. (And the reason it happened around the same time every night was the building’s hvac being set to a lower temp to save energy.)
He most certainly didn’t enjoy being told that the doors closing in his face were caused by shorts in the magnetic door holders and that he really should have put that in his report (he was written up for not reporting a maintenance issue.)
He also got written up when we found out that he was leaving windows cracked in the space above him, but he wrote them off as ghosts screaming instead of the wind whistling through a slightly cracked window.
Our understanding of the universe is imperfect- and it probably always will be. The point of science is to improve that understanding using evidence and experimentation.
I’ll take science any day of the week.
I grew up in a house built in the 1920s and the first owner died in it. I spent years working in a recording studio that was in a Victorian farmhouse that was a sanatorium for sick children for a while, so I assume a huge number of them died there. And some in pain and trauma.
I never once saw or heard a ghost.
I saw and heard a lot of mice in the latter because the owner (who lived upstairs) didn’t understand basic concepts like “doing the dishes” or “putting away food,” but no ghosts.
That place was a shithole filled with crazy people. I could write a book except I’m still friends with a couple of them.
I used to believe in all sorts of supernatural horseshit back in the 80s, we all did. But I had one friend that thought he had some sort of power because thermostats would kick in when he walked by.
“Uh, dude, there’s a bimetallic strip in there that’s on the very edge of tripping. A slight breeze will indeed kick it off.”
Nope. He apparently had some sort of “cold” aura.
Idk about “supernatural” but there definitely seems like there’s a lot of undiscovered psychological phenomenon we haven’t figured out. It’s hard to research and quantify subjective experiences.
While James Randi was alive, he offered $1,000,000 for proof of the supernatural. He never got that proof. I think that’s pretty telling.
There’s stuff I’ve experienced that I can’t understand or explain. Certainly, I trust other’s witnesses of their own experiences, even if they seem supernatural to me. But, I don’t consider that good enough evidence to believe in the supernatural.
Unexplained does not mean unexplainable nor supernatural.
There are all kinds of things in my life I have experienced that I cannot explain. For one thing, I am not an expert on everything. For another, I am a prisoner inside a skull that has to rely on not especially precise equipment in terms of sensory input. In other words, the meat sacks in our heads cannot be trusted. In fact, going back to Randi, if they could be trusted, Randi and other magicians would never have a job.
None of that is evidence for the supernatural.
Let me preface this by saying I tend to go with the Null hypothesis until proven otherwise, and as such don’t believe in the unproven supernatural.
Regardless, there are two ways to interpret James Randi never getting proof.
- There are no provable supernatural claims.
- Those who could prove a supernatural claim have
no use forsome reason a $1,000,000 prize would not be sufficiently enticing.
Edit: Reworked #2 for accuracy and clarity. Added wording in italics.
Re number. 2, they must also either be ignorant of the existence of charities or can’t think of a single one that could use that $1,000,000 they would have no use for. So I don’t accept that.
Perhaps. Though it’s entirely conceivable that the cost of revealing said supernatural proof would be detrimental to their life in such a way that no use of a $1,000,000 would justify it. Or, ala Mr. Manhattan, they have lost their empathy and/or worldly concern. Or they could just be massive dicks who could make $1,000,000 easier if their secret is kept, like Hayden Christensen in Jumper.
So I stand by my point that only looking at James Randi’s $1,000,000 prize as proof that “there are no supernatural claims that can be proven” is an example of sampling bias.
Assuming the correctness of a hypothesis without sufficiently disproving potentially valid alternatives is how we wound up with the acceptance of the supernatural. It’s just bad epistemology.
Regardless, I believe that James Randi’s offer, combined with the lack of any other provable and sufficiently documented supernatural occurrences means it’s more than reasonable to not hold any belief in the supernatural. I certainly don’t myself.
ETA: 3. I suppose a third possibility is they were unable/unwilling to travel or were entirely unaware of said prize. Something like a “hermetic monk” for example.
Bro, what is a hermetic monk 💀.
If I had legit supernatural powers, $1,000,000 would be chump change to reveal those powers. No way.
I fully believe there’s something beyond our 3 spatial dimensions we call reality. What that is, I don’t know. Does it have sentience, I doubt. I also think these things fall into unknowables, things each individual will develop a different feel for, and should be deeply personal.
Why do you fully believe this? What do you base this firm conviction on?
-
60% the person experiencing it misunderstood or misinterpreted what they were looking at because they were stupid and gullible, but not maliciously making things up.
-
35% completely fabricated and never happened and created to legitimately defraud or troll others.
-
5% something scientific that we simply don’t understand yet.
-
0% actual supernatural occurrences.
That 5% is the most exciting thing in the world.
Completely agree.
What constitues “something scientific”? That sounds fascinating.
There’s a whole crap tonne about the universe we really don’t understand yet; especially when you get down to the quantum level, spooky action at a distance, wave functions, etc…
In a very real way, we’re still just cavemen banging on rocks as far as the sum total knowledge of how things work out there in what we call “reality”. So within that vast gap of what we know, and what we don’t know, there’s could be a lot of things going on.
Is that a ghost? or is that a momentary glitch in the fabric of space-time? Or is it just someone mistaking a cars headlight bouncing of a chandelier and into a door that is ajar at just the right angle. One of those theories is provable using the scientific method and the knowledge that we currently have. One of those theories might eventually be able to be proven with knowledge that we don’t yet possess. And one of those theories is so-called “supernatural”.
As a reasonable human with critical thinking skills, I’ll put my money on either of the last ones before I’ll put my money on the first.
spooky action at a distance
There is no “spooky action at a distance.” We know quantum mechanics does not contain anything that violates the speed of light limit because this is a requirement for special relativity, and quantum mechanics is mathematically compatible with special relativity. The unification of the two theories is known as quantum field theory. There is a proof called the No-communication Theory that shows that there is nothing you could ever do to a particle in an entangled pair that would alter the state of the particle it is entangled with. There is no actual “nonlocal” (faster-than-light) effects between them.
Claims that there is some sort of nonlocal effects either come from bizarre philosophical arguments where you (for some reason) claim that the wave function represents a literal physical entity floating out there in an infinitely dimensional space whereby the observer effect causes it to “collapse” like a house of cards into a single particle (this is just pure fantasy, nothing in the mathematics of the theory demands you believe this), or it comes from people misunderstanding Bell’s theorem and believing it proves the universe has nonlocal effects, when Bell’s theorem only shows that if you add hidden variables to quantum mechanics then you must introduce nonlocal effects. Since quantum mechanics is not a hidden variable theory, there is no need for nonlocal effects.
wave functions
The wave function can be used to pick a value from a list of probability amplitudes, and this list of probability amplitudes is called the state vector. The state vector has a probability amplitude for each possible outcome, and each probability amplitude is related to the likelihood of a particular possible outcome occurring. Quantum mechanics assumes nature behaves fundamentally randomly, so the best you can do is make statistical predictions in terms of probabilities.
In a very real way, we’re still just cavemen banging on rocks as far as the sum total knowledge of how things work out there in what we call “reality”. So within that vast gap of what we know, and what we don’t know, there’s could be a lot of things going on.
There doesn’t need to be a “deeper” explanation. It’s like the kid who always asks “why.” There can’t always be an answer to the question. Eventually you just have to shrug your shoulders and say, “it is what it is.” Otherwise, you get an infinite regress. You have to stop somewhere, and it makes sense to me to stop at our most fundamental scientific theories. Sure, “there could be a lot of things going on,” there could be a clown hiding your cupboards, I could be the King of England talking to you right now. Vaguely speculating on how something “could” be possible does not actually, in and of itself, make it reasonable to believe it in it.
Of course, it is always possible all our theories are wrong and get overturned in a major way, but actually believing it is wrong would require an enormous amount of evidence. I stick to interpreting the natural world based on what our best scientific theories for the time tell us. Even if it turns out to be wrong, such as with Newtonian mechanics, well, Newton still had a much more accurate understanding of nature than someone who bases their understanding of nature off of nothing. The fact our theories could potentially be proven wrong is not a good reason to believe in total unjustified nonsense. Whatever you believe in should be well-substantiated by the evidence.
The fact our theories could potentially be wrong, I do not think this is good justification for resorting to pure utilitarianism either, as if we should refuse to ever interpret the natural world because any interpretation has the potential to change one day. Pure utilitarians just treat scientific theories as merely predictive tools, but do not say anything about nature. I prefer to just say we should embrace the change. My understanding of nature is dependent upon our best scientific theories for the time. If, in a thousand years, there is a breakthrough that changes this, I would have still had a better understanding of nature than someone who based their beliefs off of something different than the natural sciences. If that breakthrough happens tomorrow, well, I’d be happy to change my mind. It’s not an issue.
“Provable”? Nah. I prefer “useful”.
This desire for “Truth” is strange to me. I see no necessary connection between ideas and phenomena.
What is useful for me may not be useful for you. It may be useful for me to tell some sort of slanderous lie about you to all of your neighbors. I assume you would desire the truth in that sort of situation.
That is why truth is more important than utility. Utility is subjective. Truth is not.
Lies can be useful. They cal also be dangerous.
Preferring possible usefulness to truth is alarming.
I see no necessary connection between ideas and phenomena
That’s fair enough. You’re welcome to live however you want to. I’m just explaining the difference between science and mysticism. It’s not going to affect the average person’s life in any fashion whether they believe in ghosts or not; they’ll still go to work, buy groceries, get old and die.
But the rejection of science leads inexorably down to a path where a cult of ignorance starts to form; where those who aren’t intellectually curious but still want to have an opinion on stuff start to think that their opinion is just as valid as actual facts. And we see what happens when that kind of willful ignorance works its way into the public discourse.
In short, you’re welcome to not differentiate between ideas and actual scientific phenomena. But someone has to, because society only functions when decisions are made by people who share the same basic knowledge of reality.
I’m not rejecting science. I think it’s fine.
What is a “scientific phenomenon”?
Something that is able to potentially be explained by following the scientific method.
That covers all phenomena, surely
-
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/718/
Basically, it’s not that hard to believe there are so many stories.
Paraphrasing I believe — Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
No nothing is “supernatural “. We may not yet know what we’re seeing or exactly what happened… we simply don’t understand it yet.
Yet is relevant point there IMHO. We will.
and not understanding how something functions isnt a reason to assign intent or awareness to the thing.
But there is also a possibility that what we don’t understand transcends the laws of nature. That’s what supernatural means. A possibility that our universe is also governed by supernatural forces, as much as it is governed by natural forces.
If something can “transcend” the laws of nature, then the ability to do that is part of the laws of nature, and thus it transcends nothing. We just didn’t know all of the rules.
If ghosts are real, then they aren’t breaking the rules of nature because clearly the rules of nature allow for ghosts, we just don’t understand how yet, but then ghosts are natural.
By definition, anything real is natural, and anything supernatural is not.
But we still need the word “supernatural” to describe such things. Otherwise, what do we call the phenomena?
Fictional
That’s just a weak reformulation of the “God of the gaps” fallacy.
The difference is that science is observable and testable, god is not. This key difference, changes it from being a fallacy.
So, in the god of the gaps fallacy it goes like this:
- GotG: Something unknown = GOD!
- Science: Something unknown = “We don’t know!”
- GotG: Ghosts = GOD!!
- Science: Ghosts = “We need a way to reliably test and confirm!”
Science isn’t anti-god either. It’s just pro-knowledge. Observable, testable, verifiable knowledge.
Science isn’t anti-god either. It’s just pro-knowledge. Observable, testable, verifiable knowledge.
This part. If ghosts are observable, testable, and verifiable, then we would have a way of measuring things. Maybe ghosts are 4th dimensional entities. It’s very possible they are real and it’s purely something we haven’t been able to measure thus far.
Science gets stuff wrong all the time. The point of science is to be adapting and learning. And part of that involves verifying credibility of a new source of information.
Unfortunately, almost all of the sources of “proof” of things like ghosts are heavily biased in favor of proving things over disproving, and there are a lot of people throwing clear scams into the mix. Science needs to go in with an open mind. “I want ghosts to be real, and the wind moved this door, therefore it was a ghost” is not valid proof of ghosts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WohbNt18wNs Things like this. A pastor that can walk on air, which is clearly fake. If the pastor believed he could walk on air, why would he fake it. This is not proof that people CAN’T walk on air, but it’s a great example of why when someone claims they can, you should figure out why lying about it benefits them (this guy clearly wants more people to tithe to his church).
GotG benefits from the default being “GOD!” for all things, because it leaves them in power. Science has no benefit from anything except the truth. Sure there will be liars in science as well and a lot of people will optimistically want to believe the lies if they sound nice, but looking at things like LK-99, it winds up disproven when it’s a lie. Capitalism and industry don’t care about your fake superconductor. That doesn’t benefit them, they only care about real superconductors.
Saying that I’m making a god of the gaps argument would also mean that you are making a science of the gaps argument.
Except, when you fill the gaps with science, you have evidence and proof. Not superstition and ancient myth.
But you’re still leading yourself into a fallacious argument. It’s not any better.
Er um— no.
There is nothing that is “supernatural “
There is nothing that is proven and repeated not beholden to the laws of nature.
Yes it is possible, but there isn’t any proof of anything transcending nature. You’re making a “god of the gaps” argument. It is illogical to assume that god or anything supernatural keeps getting smaller and smaller so as to hide in those ever shrinking gaps.
But we need a name to describe such extraordinary events. If you erase it, what do we call such phenomena? There’s a reason why the word exists. Also, saying that I’m making a god of the gaps argument would also mean that you are making a science of the gaps argument, where you assume that science will always have an answer, and that it is the only truth. It’s why I believe that it’s best to sit on the fence on this topic, your mind being open to ideas of supernatural phenomena, as you still consider rational scientific explanations.
Supernatural phenomena do not actually exist as far as I can tell. There’s no actual evidence to my knowledge, and plenty of evidence that humans are not particularly good at perceiving or interpreting the universe around us as it actually is. Our brains are not a reliable narrator, supernatural phenomena are most likely a consequence of this rather than anything genuinely supernatural.
This argument is a very common one. It’s only valid at a scientific standpoint, since you can’t really scientifically prove something that transcends the laws of nature. However, at a historical standpoint, the existence of supernatural phenomena can be considered. There is also no evidence that supernatural phenomena does not exist.
Any non-falsifiable theory is only worth so much.
And can still be considered.
Not really, because every non-falsifiable theory is true at the same time. I mean, I can’t forbid anyone from considering.
And that’s what I’m advocating. For people to sit on the fence, instead of leaning hard-science, or hard-supernatural.
You may have misunderstood me - supernatural theories are worthless because they are non-falsifiable.
That doesn’t make them worthless. Have you ever listened to stories that may involve potential supernatural forces?
I’m not sure what you mean about a historical standpoint. I don’t think there’s anything in the historical record that could be considered actual evidence of supernatural phenomena. History as an academic discipline is a kind of science and generally approaches the subject matter with the scientific method.
What? Supernatural stuff has been talked about throughout history.
I’m a strict naturalist - I believe that supernatural phenomena do not exist. I do not believe in the unknown.
deleted by creator
Why? Supernatural phenomena isn’t really generally unknown.
What do you mean? That people experience supernatural phenomena?
If they didn’t, they would it be a thing?
Ok. I don’t believe they do experience supernatural. I think people are gullible, only selectively critical, and are often influenced by their culture to believe in supernatural explanations. And some people are just frauds. I believe honest people get tricked by their culture to regard unknown as supernatural, and by accepting that explanation, never find the natural behind the unknown.
There is no supernatural. Everything is natural. I’m agnostic, so I won’t rule out something exists some people would call a god, but even if it exists, I would count it as natural.
I disagree. Supernatural is anything that transcends the laws of nature. Something that transcends the laws of nature is not natural.
To paraphrase Tim Minchin, the supernatural has either not been proved to exist or has been proved to not exist.
If you can test it - it’s natural. If you can’t test it - you can’t prove it even exists.
Inability to test something does not prove it doesn’t exist.
It doesn’t prove it, no, but it doesn’t need to. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim, so any claim should come with a way to test it. Otherwise, you can ALWAYS say, “Well, the flying spaghetti monster did it. You can’t prove me wrong.”
What are the laws of nature? You keep saying that as if it proves something but haven’t defined it. Where do the laws come from?
The laws of physics, biology… blah blah blah. I really wish we’d stop arguing about the definition, because it won’t really go anywhere. You know what I mean when I say supernatural.
Proofs start from axioms, which the ‘laws of nature’ as defined by you, are not. I don’t know what you mean, which is why I asked. You’re only revealing your own lack of critical thought here, this isn’t a gotcha like you think it is.
What do you mean by gotcha? I think you’re just being difficult really.
