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’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.
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.
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.
It’s only a fallacious argument if you don’t say “we can’t answer that yet” and maybe add, “but here are some theories…”
“I don’t know” does not mean “therefore the supernatural is real.”
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.
This “then why do we have a word for that” is such a a strange argument
We also have a word for elves, doesn’t mean they exist
It’s the same logic I see people applying to Korean, with arguments like “they have no word for depression, therefore they’re happier”, completely ignoring the fact that they have a bridge called “suicide bridge” (guess why)
If you think the word supernatural is so unneeded, you can petition for it to be taken out of dictionaries and Wikipedia.
and not understanding how something functions isnt a reason to assign intent or awareness to the thing.
There hasn’t been any proof in all of history that any supernatural phenomenon was real.
Until there is, my thoughts on it are: not real, never happened.There also hasn’t been any proof that supernatural phenomena doesn’t exist. It’s why I choose to keep an open mind about it. It’s a subject that suffers a lot of stigma in the science-centric world we live in, and thus few people talk about it.
There also hasn’t been any proof that supernatural phenomena doesn’t exist.
You can play that game all day with anything. It’s not a valid argument.
Why is it not a valid argument?
That’s already been explained to you by others here.
I want to hear your opinion. That’s the point of this post. It’s how we have healthy debates.
I’ve already started my opinion.
All you’re doing is telling people no. That’s not a debate.You haven’t really said anything. You just said that my argument isn’t valid, refused to elaborate why, and when asked to do so, you said that others have told me why, when I’m getting completely different opinions from multiple people. Also, disagreeing with people is literally what makes a debate a debate. What do you want me to do? Agree with everyone even if I don’t? That’s not how a genuine conversation works.
Exactly. There’s no definitive proof that winged monkeys won’t fly out of my asshole five minutes from now, but I’m not making plans that assume they will.
Well, you sold me. I definitely believe in your five minute asshole monkeys!
I don’t.
But I want to.
It rightly suffers stigma because it does not follow the scientific method, but claims to have scientific merit.
Supernatural phenomena does not claim to have scientific merit. You are also assuming that science will eventually explain everything about everything. That it is the only existing truth. This is called scientism, and it oversteps science’s proper boundaries.
Um… no? Not what I said and not what I believe.
To quote professor Farnsworth: “The pursuit of knowledge is hopeless and eternal. HOORAY!”
We’re always going to have things we don’t know. The point is to build on the knowledge we do have and to slowly get better. What the belief in the supernatural does is actually the shortcut to “being able to explain everything about everything”, because you’re presupposing the answer without any proof or testing done. Sure, those things might be possible, but so might be waking up in the Pokemon universe tomorrow.
Until there’s proof, I have no reason to act like there is. It’s a fun game to think about, but it shouldn’t hold any weight in how you see the universe we actually live in.
Also, the natural universe is weird enough already. Have you heard of the fine structure constant? Basically, we found this one constant number within all of these different fundamental formulas for how the universe behaves, but it doesn’t have a unit associated. So, we know that it exists and can calculate it, but no one knows WHY it exists. We think it’s a constant, but it might have changed over time, so we’re trying to find ways to test that. We might never know, but those questions are far more interesting to me than “maybe aliens”.
Yes, there’s going to be stuff we don’t know about. That’s why I’m advocating for open-mindedness to supernatural phenomena. That’s my goal.
There also hasn’t been any proof that supernatural phenomena doesn’t exist
You can’t prove a negative. Which is why in the scientific method, the onus is on the person making the claim to provide the proof, not the other way around. That’s why we rarely engage in debates with people who don’t grasp that concept, because for the most part they’re argument comes down to “You can’t prove it doesn’t exist, so therefore I’m right.”
I think there may be some scientific explanation for a variety of things that are attributed to the supernatural; and not necessarily just mundane things like knocks and creaks in your house, paradolia causing images of faces in image noise and shit like that. For example, with how places that have unusual geomagnetic activity tend to also have higher than average ghost sightings, I think some people may just be extra sensitive to magnetic fields which causes them to hallucinate.
So many myths and monsters are basically caused by misunderstandings, not seeing something clearly enough to identify it, or even exaggerating a story that’s been passed down verbally over a long time. Not to mention things caused by mental illness in times before advanced medicine and psychology. Many alien abduction stories and succubus sightings are almost certainly the result of hallucinations induced by sleep paralysis.
I have a “theory” that in these places where there are higher than normal “ghost sightings” and “encounters” that the spaces between our universe (think of the string theory of the universes) and another are even closer than “normal”, and that these “sightings” and “encounters” are a part of that crossover, and we just don’t currently have a way to measure it or interact in a meaningful way.
I also don’t really understand string theory all that well, I mostly just have a half-baked idea of what it is and how it works, so be gentle, please!
I think the vast majority of people who are even aware of the term “string theory” only have a half-baked idea of what it is. You’re in good company!
I know that some physicists think that the force of gravity is inexplicably weak, and that gravity isn’t as powerful as it “should” be. There’s a theory out there (or maybe it’s part of a larger theory, I don’t remember) that what we perceive as gravity is just “leaking” from another dimension. That dovetails nicely with your own perspective.
Lets have a fun conversation.
What is a hallucination?
I’m nit the person you asked, but is no “fun” if you intend to be educated by each of your interlocutors without even attempting to investigate anything yourself. It’s lazy and disrespectful, and reeks of sealioning.
Let me talk to people ffs.
A phantom sense of something that isn’t actually there. Be it feeling a touch, seeing something, hearing something, smelling something, etc. As real as it may seem to the brain experiencing it, it’s entirely a product of that brain and can be caused by all sorts of things from illness and physical trauma to chemicals, lack of sleep, or even simply being deprived of stimulation.
So, a hallucination is not real, right? But how can we tell if we aren’t even sure if the current reality we’re currently experiencing is true reality?
I try to keep my thinking in line with scientific materialism. That also means things I believe need to be falsifiable, which means, I don’t entirely believe them. There there always needs to be a bit of a hole or escape hatch in any truth to prevent it from becoming dogma.
I don’t “believe” what I’m about to say, but it’s something that has come up for me many times under psychedelics, which is the concept of a ‘consciousness first’ manifestation of reality. It’s the closest thing I have to a spiritual or supernatural belief, and it’s not really a belief because I don’t believe it, but I do entertain the idea from time to time. The basic argument is that we’ve got the order of operations backwards, that the universe doesn’t manifest consciousness through emergent properties, but rather that consciousness manifests universe concepts and scenarios that end up being plausible. This concepts extends the concept of consciousness to all matter and energy as well, because it all ends up being one and the same. I think of it as an extension of some Taoist thinking around wei wu wei where, because one is aught to find what they are looking for, if we can step back and stop dictating what we think/demand reality to be, reality may actually be much more fluid if we aren’t so dogmatic in our thinking about it.
Anyways, I don’t really believe any of that. But I think it would make for good science fiction, although it’s already been done extremely well by Le Guin in her novella The Lathe of Heaven.
That also means things I believe need to be falsifiable
It’s possible to have real science without it being falsifiable in the Popperian sense. For example, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, medicine (unless your sense of ethics would even shame a Nazi).
Popper’s goal was to discredit soft sciences like sociology because he was an extreme conservative who didn’t like the findings that people like Horkheimer and Adorno were coming up with.
As for psychedelics, one part of the mind that’s affected by psychedelics is the part that tells you what’s important and meaningful. What you’re being shown is the subjectivity and emptiness of that sense of awe.
I’m on the page of discrediting soft-sciences. Because they are not rigid and testable, they are filled to the brim with what are essentially witch-doctors who read the tea leaves so-to-speak. Social sciences especially. They are a pseudo-science that has infected the minds of many.
I have to defend archaeology here because that is not true in the modern discipline whether or not you want to call it a true science. Modern archaeologists are (generally) very meticulous with their findings and very reluctant to come up with conclusions that sound like anything near objective truths because they are more aware than anyone that it is fragmentary information about the past which we have to come up with conclusions to and basing them on our own modern biases.
Modern archaeology has also (again, generally) embraced the idea that archaeology is inherently destructive, so studying sites in on-invasive ways with actual scientific tools like magnetometry and ground-penetrating radar is very popular and requires someone with actual grounded training in geophysics to do properly. Even basic GIS mapping requires scientific instruction in order to do it properly and GIS is a primary tool of archaeologists now.
I’m not an archaeologist, just a very keen amateur enthusiast who wishes less of it didn’t go over his head.
I wouldn’t group Archaeology in with humanities or soft-sciences. They are using rigorous methodologies for their findings, and they kind of take from multiple fields in that regard. Radiocarbon dating for example; sure it doesn’t give us exact answers, but it gives a repeatable, testable result.
Personally I take them with a grain of salt, some supernatural phenomena are probably not yet understood by current science. Now I sound like an ancient aliens person meme.
Just based on the premise of this question I think you should look into the work of Robert Anton Wilson if you haven’t already.
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.
Sorry but I’m going to call out what I see as some pretty blatant motte-and-bailey argumentation by the OP and their offense taken to people trying to nail down the definition of supernatural is illustrative.
They have their bailey, belief in things like the occult, ghosts, demons, etc, that are almost certainly bullshit. To the extent that they can be falsified, they have been. This is the typical definition of what people think when you say “supernatural” and people are right to answer “no” when asked if they believe in it.
But then you have OP falling back on their motte when this happens, taking a nebulous definition of supernatural and asking rhetorical philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown. The fallacy is that these questions do nothing to strengthen or refute the original argument about the supernatural.
Nobody is here to argue that nothing is unknown and even unknowable but that doesn’t make the things that people typically call “supernatural” any less bullshit. Demons and ghosts are just not the kinds of things that are waiting around to surprise us. And shifting the conversation from your bailey to your motte to protect your feelings on the former is not a good way to have a friendly debate.
All that aside, if you are interested in expanding your understanding of the universe then I’d really encourage you to divert the effort you’re putting into the “supernatural” into learning about the actual natural universe instead. Our universe really is fantastic on its own. There’s plenty of interesting, wacky, and unknown things happening all around us that you can learn about without resorting to magic. If anything, magic is the boring answer imo.
They have their bailey, belief in things like the occult, ghosts, demons, etc, that are almost certainly bullshit. To the extent that they can be falsified, they have been. This is the typical definition of what people think when you say “supernatural” and people are right to answer “no” when asked if they believe in it.
You say that people are right to answer “no” when asked if they believe in this stuff. That is just not true at all. That’s because that as much as good evidence can be hard to come by for supernatural stuff, there is also no official evidence whatsoever that proves that such things do not exist. Therefore, the most accurate answer should really be “I don’t know”, because of the subject’s unfalsifiable nature, and how it’s outside scientific testing. You still have a right to say “yes”, or “no” though.
But then you have OP falling back on their motte when this happens, taking a nebulous definition of supernatural and asking philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown. The fallacy is that these questions do nothing to strengthen or refute the original argument about the supernatural.
That “nebulous” definition of supernatural that I keep using IS the literal definition of the word. You even described it yourself how I described it on your second paragraph, first line. Yes, I have been “asking philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown”. And why can’t I do that? My post is an open-ended question. This means that the conversation can go anywhere, provided that the context continues to match the topic of the post. What do you mean by “original argument about the supernatural”? Again, this post is meant to be an open-ended question where others contribute their thoughts on the supernatural, I share my opinions on their thoughts, and we agree, or disagree. There is no “original argument about the supernatural”.
Nobody is here to argue that nothing is unknown and even unknowable but that doesn’t make the things that people typically call “supernatural” any less bullshit. Demons and ghosts are just not the kinds of things that are waiting around to surprise us. And shifting the conversation from your bailey to your motte to protect your feelings on the former is not a good way to have a friendly debate.
Actually, people here have argued such, as supernatural phenomena is a mysterious topic. Nowhere have I declared that there are no BS claims in the supernatural world. However, saying that all supernatural claims are complete BS without evidence supporting it is a biased take. Some are debunked, and some aren’t, which is how we end up with unexplained claims that are beyond rational explanation. A scenario like this is the reason why we should stay open-minded about supernatural phenomena, instead of completely denouncing it.
…there is also no official evidence whatsoever that proves that such things do not exist
That statement right there sums up the problem.
No, you cannot prove that the supernatural does not exist. The same way you cannot prove that god doesn’t exist, or that there isn’t a teakettle in orbit around the sun between Venus and Mercury. The lack of evidence against their existence is not evidence for it. However, since there have been so many claims of supernatural phenomena, gods and near-sun teakettles, and none of them have been shown to be true, I feel confident in saying that they don’t exist.
Here are some interesting counterpoints though…
The James Randi prize has never been claimed. No person has been able to demonstrate the existence of supernatural phenomena in order to claim an easy 1 million dollars.
Everything that has ever been discovered has turned out to be not magic.
I’ll tell you why I say the answer is no to whether or not the occult, demons, or ghosts exist. There’s a phenomenon in statistics where if you were to select a random element from an infinite set of equally probable elements, the probability that a specific element will be selected is 0%. Not close to 0, literally 0.
These kinds of supernatural phenomena that have no evidence belong to an infinite set of equally unlikely phenomena with no evidence. Their likelihood of being real is 0%. Only when phenomena has some tangible evidence explaining it can we elevate it to a finite set with a non-zero likelihood of being real.
If that’s your stance, it’s ok. We can agree to disagree. I still choose to sit on the fence.
I’d recommend Manly P Halls book on “secret teachings”. I think alot of “religion” is just philosophy + myth.
Seconding custard_swallower. Strict naturalism. I see no reason to believe in any supernatural claim of any kind.
Relatively recently I had a new hypothesis for some of the feelings people attribute to hauntings; bad vibes. I know someone who smokes indoors in their home. Before I had purged supernatural beliefs of all kinds from my worldview I thought there was some kind of curse or haunting wrong with the place. No, it’s the ill effects of third-hand smoke.
Belief in non-theistic supernatural phenomena appears to be a crutch for theistic supernatural belief; it gives a convenient explanation for something so that you don’t exercise your rational faculties to find the real reason and then have the kind of experience that can contribute to unraveling god-beliefs.
Of course, there are rational explanations to things that people think are supernatural, but some things transcend rational explanations, and remain unexplained. This is where we may start to consider the supernatural.
I’ve yet to find any such thing and those that have been presented to me tend to be in the ‘we have insufficient information’ category for why it can’t be clearly determined what happened. People love to wedge the supernatural into those crevices in spite of still not being a good fit.
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/718/
Basically, it’s not that hard to believe there are so many stories.
-
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.
“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
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.
-
OP if you’re feeling lost and without purpose there’s more fulfilling things than getting trapped in the search for God. There’s natural humanism. Read Carl Sagan. Read some Marcus Aurelius. There’s a whole universe of interesting philosophy and science worth learning about rather than trying to find meaning in thy mystical and empty ‘supernatural’ hoping to stumble upon a sign that says made by god. The universe is majestic and endless and we are specks of atoms here for a short short time. Make the most of it while you can.
I’m not in search of a god to worship, or religion to be in. I’m free from those shackles. Now, I just like to dabble in the occult, and esotericism. I also like to deeply question reality. Yes, I love science too. I like to be on the fence between science, and the supernatural.
Anyone who is fence sitting or undecided about naturalism or empiricism and is dabbling with ‘the supernatural’ is just longing for a meaning or purpose. You don’t get to claim to be free of the shackles of religion but still asks questions about the supernatural - can they really claim to be free? When I left my religion it took me a really long time to deprogram. It doesn’t happen over night but it takes years. You can’t be half pregnant: you either are or you aren’t. You don’t want to call it God because it’s embarrassing, but what’s the difference really? At that point it’s just a semantic distinction.
What you’re saying is very strange. You’re saying that I cannot sit on the fence. Apparently, I must pick a side. Because I’m an atheist, I cannot talk about supernatural phenomena? I can’t dabble in occult and esoteric studies? What the hell. This is an extremely closed-minded way of thinking. It’s why some of you make atheism your entire personality. Some of you think that because you picked this side only, you have the moral high ground than those who are open to concepts of the other side too, as much as this side. Only focused on putting down the other side no matter what. You are also attempting to gaslight me into thinking that I am not free from the shackles of religion, just because I like to keep an open mind to supernatural phenomena. That I’m still seeking some kind of god, or religion. As if you know me personally. I research the occult and esotericism in my free time because I find it interesting, and I am open to ideas of our universe also being governed by supernatural forces, as much as natural forces. Simple as that.
What is your proof that God doesn’t exist?
I don’t think he doesn’t exist. I simply don’t know. Anyways, the question of whether he exists or not isn’t even what keeps me up at night. It’s which god is which, and where did they come from. Yahweh, Allah… etc. Yahweh’s origins seem to be unknown. Are they the same deities? Who was Jesus, and why was his depiction so different compared to Yahweh, the OT god. Yahweh was depicted as a god of war, while Jesus preached love and forgiveness. Aren’t they supposed to be one? Gnostic texts say otherwise. Why was the church so fixated on censoring and persecuting Gnositcs in the 2nd century? And what about their alleged connections to the Knights Templar? Although, this is speculation. There’s just so many questions. You’ll find out just how complicated this stuff is once you dive into it. It’s why I said that it’s not as simple and straightforward as it’s made to look.
Yes, history and theology are indeed quite fascinating.
How would we go about differentiating fact from imagination?
It’s very hard considering that the knowledge is decentralized unlike mainstream religion. What I’ve been advised to do, is consider the origins and context of what you’re looking at first, compare it with other documents, analyze your observations, use critical thinking, talk to people who are researching the same things, and overall, just keep an open mind. That doesn’t mean that you accept everything. It means that you should just consider the possibility.
I just like to dabble in the occult, and esotericism.
Why? That’s pure bullshit.
Because I find it fun.
“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 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.
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.
