How Certain Are You?

[OrdinaryClay]

How certain are you (percentage wise, have some guts and take a guess) ...

1) That Christianity is wrong.

My first reaction when I read this was that it's not the question I would ask. If we agree that Christianity is a set of beliefs then I would ask, "What are the functions of these beliefs?"

 

I do think that someone who says, "Live by the sword; die by the sword" is right on the money though. And I like Proverbs 3:13 -18.

 

I am certain though that some core beliefs of Christianity are mistaken.

I don't understand what you mean by "functions" in this context.

 

2) That there is no supernatural (if you're a materialist)

My thoughts on this are something like... Say we have a natural domain (call it N) and we have a supernatural domain (call it S) then there are either relations between them which alter N, or there are not. If N is altered by S and S is only known through N then we have no basis for distinguishing the action of the supernatural from causality. And if N is not altered by S then S becomes irelevant by virtue of being outside of inquiry.

 

That might be close to what I was thinking.

I address your comment here and in many follow on posts.

[OrdinaryClay]

Some thing could be detectable and not predictable.

I think guesses about what is, in principle, predictable are notoriously shakey. It's pretty much an article of common belief that various measured events entail other events. But this gives little guide as to what is predictable and what is not.

An example of a scientifically unpredictable event would be an event driven by a free willed agent.

[OrdinaryClay]

1) That Christianity is wrong: Completely. There is no one road to anywhere.

2) That there is no supernatural (if you're a materialist): Nothing we can comprehend, realize, or interact with exists beyond nature. If it somehow does, then it is of no importance or use to us. Just because we do not understand it does not make it supernatural.

Hi, I answered your comment in item 2 in earlier posts.

[OrdinaryClay]

There seems to be some confusion regarding what the supernatural is. The supernatural is not the unknown or even the unknowable. We may never be able to mathematically predict what occurred before Planck time in the singularity(therefore unknowable), but that does not make it supernatural. The supernatural, is by definition, outside physics (Physics defines the natural world).

 

More over, if the supernatural existed it may still be able to interact with the natural world, but not be subject to the same form of predictability that the natural world is. For example, in order for a phenomenon to be natural it is necessary and sufficient that it be both detectable and predictable via the laws of physics. A supernatural phenomenon may be detectable, but not predictable.

Everything that interacts with the natural world does so by some means. What is the means by which the supernatural interacts?

The miraculous. I'm not claiming the supernatural is not miraculous. I'm claiming the supernatural can be defined adequately to distinguish it from the natural.

 

You have chased God right out of the known universe and he's there with fairies, goblins, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Elvis and Jupiter (the god, not the planet). If it's all "unpredictable" then why do religious people insist on predicting things? Where does that leave prayer? What about the promises that religion makes? All unpredictable?

The unpredictability I'm referring to is scientific unpredictability. The nature of the supernatural depends on the free willed agent interacting. The choice to answer prayer, and the choice as to how to answer, is determined by the free willed supernatural agent - in this case God.

[OrdinaryClay]

If I saw five miracles (supernatural/magic) events in a row, it would be interesting, that's for sure.

 

But still doesn't prove Biblical or religious dogma. Not even close.

 

The supernatural is irrelevant. We can't feature it, study it, or gain knowledge from it. Partly because it isn't there, and partly because it doesn't prove anything.

Interesting how? Your post seems to be self conflicting.

[Snakefoot]

Man-up, Clay, and give us a specific example (not a generalization) of a supernatural event.

[OrdinaryClay]

A brilliant quest by Clay (the OP) to attempt to convert the concept of the "supernatural" as something existing outside of the ability for science or the rational mind to interpret and integrate into our understanding of the natural world.

 

In other words, "supernatural" really means "magic".

I largely agree except with the last sentence. Supernatural means "god of gaps."

 

Sadly the "poll" shows that quite a few people are willing leaving to leave just a little "gap" open for a whole lot of stupid to come pouring through.

 

mwc

How long, and for how much effort, do you allow for the scientific gap to exist before you conclude the supernatural? (all the while detecting and not predicting)

[Shyone]

The problem with the supernatural

 

The first problem, of course, is definition. If nature is all that exists, then the supernatural is nonexistent by definition. Nature can be synonymous with the universe or the cosmos. Carl Sagan was not making a bald statement; he merely stated the definition of the cosmos. “Outside of nature” remains undefined and nonsensical. It also becomes a fool’s game where the object of the search is progressively defined as just outside of the reach or detection of humanity; As another described it, “a convenient hiding place.” To call it “unpredictable” could describe it, but not define it. As Ourobouros said, quantum mechanics employs the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle when describing the location of tiny particles that can also be described as waves. Either the position or the velocity can be known, but not both simultaneously. This does not make the particles supernatural.

 

The second problem is location. Since the universe is everything that exists, placing the supernatural outside of the universe is meaningless. There is no outside of the universe, or below it, or above it, or south of it. To specify another dimension, such as using string theory or M-Theory, and placing the supernatural in a different brane or coiled dimension, means that the supernatural is indeed natural, but beyond our concern. It is also contrary to the description of the supernatural as “immaterial.”

 

The third problem is that the supernatural is often described as invisible and immaterial. This is sometimes also said to be so because the supernatural is “pure energy.” If it isn’t energy, then it is the same as the description of nothing. If it is energy, then it is natural and would also have a defined mass equal to the energy divided by the speed of light squared.

 

The fourth problem is that the supernatural is claimed, by those who claim it exists, to interact with nature. There are a number of forces in nature, and all are understood and defined. The supernatural, in order to interact with nature would need to use some force, but the advocates have no ideas about the “nature” of this force, and so it is again undefined.

 

The fifth problem is recognition. If someone saw a supernatural event, how would they know it was supernatural and not a coincidence, trick, illusion, delusion, hallucination or just an unusual event that could be explained naturally? Psychological phenomena are known to occur, and many people have claimed to be possessed by ancient spirits, demons or thetans. Some have even claimed to be God or the reincarnation of someone from the past. Some have claimed to have telepathic communications with aliens or ghosts. If the person so possessed cannot tell the difference between a mental illness and contact with the supernatural, then neither can people hearing the person making the claim. The kinds of proof that might be acceptable, such as expressing some knowledge that can be confirmed but could otherwise not be known without such contact, has not yet been produced. If the knowledge of the supernatural is gained solely by second hand account, then Thomas Paine’s caveat about believing the person needs to be considered; Is the person more likely to be lying (or delusional or fooled) or did they have some contact with the supernatural? In the end, one could be extremely gullible and believe all accounts of the supernatural, or acknowledge that lying or delusion could be behind the account. There is no good way to discriminate, and so a high degree of skepticism is in order.

 

Although the hypothesis that there is a supernatural realm is untestable and unfalsifiable by definition, when claims have been made that are testable and falsifiable, they have universally been demonstrated to be natural phenomena, delusion, hallucination or illusion. The experience of the supernatural may seem real to one making the claim, but that doesn’t make it real. When the description of the supernatural is carefully crafted to make it “everywhere but nowhere” then it is best thought of as being nowhere.

[Legion]

I don't understand what you mean by "functions" in this context.

I mean, that instead of asking if Christianity is wrong I would ask... What purposes do Christian beliefs serve? What does the individual (or society) use the beliefs for? Basically, I'm asking, "Why Christianity?" and looking for an answer in terms of final causation. I think this would give me a better understanding.

 

An example of a scientifically unpredictable event would be an event driven by a free willed agent.

Hmm... I admit that I lean towards the belief that most (if not all) phenomena are understandable and thus predictable, in principle. Presumably a free willed agent (e.g. human?) would have a mind with which to weigh options and decide. I don't see why minds must be put beyond the scope of understanding. And I imagine that some future psychologists could predict human behavior with much greater accuracy than current psychologists.

 

If I believe that things cannot possibly be understood, then it feels like laziness and self-defeat to me.

[mwc]

How long, and for how much effort, do you allow for the scientific gap to exist before you conclude the supernatural? (all the while detecting and not predicting)

I don't.

 

mwc

[Snakefoot]

C'mon, Clay, give us a specific example of a supernatural event (not a vague generalization).

[Brother Jeff]

C'mon, Clay, give us a specific example of a supernatural event (not a vague generalization).

 

Perhaps I can help Brother Clay out here. This glorious supernatural event happened quite recently:

 

http://apassionforchrist.com/2010/02/08/he-touched-me/

 

Glory!

[OrdinaryClay]

The problem with the supernatural

 

The first problem, of course, is definition. If nature is all that exists, then the supernatural is nonexistent by definition.

...

Which begs the question.

 

The second problem is location. Since the universe is everything that exists, placing the supernatural outside of the universe is meaningless. There is no outside of the universe, or below it, or above it, or south of it. To specify another dimension, such as using string theory or M-Theory, and placing the supernatural in a different brane or coiled dimension, means that the supernatural is indeed natural, but beyond our concern. It is also contrary to the description of the supernatural as “immaterial.”

Which is just restating your "first problem".

 

The third problem is that the supernatural is often described as invisible and immaterial. This is sometimes also said to be so because the supernatural is “pure energy.” If it isn’t energy, then it is the same as the description of nothing. If it is energy, then it is natural and would also have a defined mass equal to the energy divided by the speed of light squared.

I didn't define as energy. I assigned no properties other then those relative to the scientific method. If something has even one of the properties detectable or predictable it is not nothing.

 

The fourth problem is that the supernatural is claimed, by those who claim it exists, to interact with nature. There are a number of forces in nature, and all are understood and defined. The supernatural, in order to interact with nature would need to use some force, but the advocates have no ideas about the “nature” of this force, and so it is again undefined.

Something can be incompletly understood and still have defining properties. Often science can define what something should be and not understand the complete instantiation of an instance of the thing.

 

The fifth problem is recognition. If someone saw a supernatural event, how would they know it was supernatural and not a coincidence, trick, illusion, delusion, hallucination or just an unusual event that could be explained naturally? Psychological phenomena are known to occur, and many people have claimed to be possessed by ancient spirits, demons or thetans. Some have even claimed to be God or the reincarnation of someone from the past. Some have claimed to have telepathic communications with aliens or ghosts. If the person so possessed cannot tell the difference between a mental illness and contact with the supernatural, then neither can people hearing the person making the claim. The kinds of proof that might be acceptable, such as expressing some knowledge that can be confirmed but could otherwise not be known without such contact, has not yet been produced. If the knowledge of the supernatural is gained solely by second hand account, then Thomas Paine’s caveat about believing the person needs to be considered; Is the person more likely to be lying (or delusional or fooled) or did they have some contact with the supernatural? In the end, one could be extremely gullible and believe all accounts of the supernatural, or acknowledge that lying or delusion could be behind the account. There is no good way to discriminate, and so a high degree of skepticism is in order.

Recognition was fundamental to my definition. Your concern is not actually regarding recognition per se. You concern is regarding human fidelity and veracity. This same concern permeates our history and culture. How do we trust any human testimony? Through the standard methods established through societal agreement across 1000s of years of human culture. Our legal system, historiography and even science all have ways of dealing with this issue. In short your concern is a red herring.

 

Although the hypothesis that there is a supernatural realm is untestable and unfalsifiable by definition, when claims have been made that are testable and falsifiable, they have universally been demonstrated to be natural phenomena, delusion, hallucination or illusion. The experience of the supernatural may seem real to one making the claim, but that doesn’t make it real. When the description of the supernatural is carefully crafted to make it “everywhere but nowhere” then it is best thought of as being nowhere.

My definition is both testable and falsifiable.

 

Your paragraph is self conflicting. You claim "untestable and unfalsifiable", then you are claiming certainty when there are cases "that are testable and falsifiable". Obviously, if you claim that every case has been falsified then you are claiming that the supernatural can be falsified.

 

In any event, you are making a positive claim regarding the set of cases and therefore your claim requires evidence.

[Snakefoot]

The problem with the supernatural

 

The first problem, of course, is definition. If nature is all that exists, then the supernatural is nonexistent by definition.

...

Which begs the question.

 

The second problem is location. Since the universe is everything that exists, placing the supernatural outside of the universe is meaningless. There is no outside of the universe, or below it, or above it, or south of it. To specify another dimension, such as using string theory or M-Theory, and placing the supernatural in a different brane or coiled dimension, means that the supernatural is indeed natural, but beyond our concern. It is also contrary to the description of the supernatural as “immaterial.”

Which is just restating your "first problem".

 

The third problem is that the supernatural is often described as invisible and immaterial. This is sometimes also said to be so because the supernatural is “pure energy.” If it isn’t energy, then it is the same as the description of nothing. If it is energy, then it is natural and would also have a defined mass equal to the energy divided by the speed of light squared.

I didn't define as energy. I assigned no properties other then those relative to the scientific method. If something has even one of the properties detectable or predictable it is not nothing.

 

The fourth problem is that the supernatural is claimed, by those who claim it exists, to interact with nature. There are a number of forces in nature, and all are understood and defined. The supernatural, in order to interact with nature would need to use some force, but the advocates have no ideas about the “nature” of this force, and so it is again undefined.

Something can be incompletly understood and still have defining properties. Often science can define what something should be and not understand the complete instantiation of an instance of the thing.

 

The fifth problem is recognition. If someone saw a supernatural event, how would they know it was supernatural and not a coincidence, trick, illusion, delusion, hallucination or just an unusual event that could be explained naturally? Psychological phenomena are known to occur, and many people have claimed to be possessed by ancient spirits, demons or thetans. Some have even claimed to be God or the reincarnation of someone from the past. Some have claimed to have telepathic communications with aliens or ghosts. If the person so possessed cannot tell the difference between a mental illness and contact with the supernatural, then neither can people hearing the person making the claim. The kinds of proof that might be acceptable, such as expressing some knowledge that can be confirmed but could otherwise not be known without such contact, has not yet been produced. If the knowledge of the supernatural is gained solely by second hand account, then Thomas Paine’s caveat about believing the person needs to be considered; Is the person more likely to be lying (or delusional or fooled) or did they have some contact with the supernatural? In the end, one could be extremely gullible and believe all accounts of the supernatural, or acknowledge that lying or delusion could be behind the account. There is no good way to discriminate, and so a high degree of skepticism is in order.

Recognition was fundamental to my definition. Your concern is not actually regarding recognition per se. You concern is regarding human fidelity and veracity. This same concern permeates our history and culture. How do we trust any human testimony? Through the standard methods established through societal agreement across 1000s of years of human culture. Our legal system, historiography and even science all have ways of dealing with this issue. In short your concern is a red herring.

 

Although the hypothesis that there is a supernatural realm is untestable and unfalsifiable by definition, when claims have been made that are testable and falsifiable, they have universally been demonstrated to be natural phenomena, delusion, hallucination or illusion. The experience of the supernatural may seem real to one making the claim, but that doesn’t make it real. When the description of the supernatural is carefully crafted to make it “everywhere but nowhere” then it is best thought of as being nowhere.

My definition is both testable and falsifiable.

 

Your paragraph is self conflicting. You claim "untestable and unfalsifiable", then you are claiming certainty when there are cases "that are testable and falsifiable". Obviously, if you claim that every case has been falsified then you are claiming that the supernatural can be falsified.

 

In any event, you are making a positive claim regarding the set of cases and therefore your claim requires evidence.

C'mon, Clay, give us a specific example of a supernatural event (not a vague generalization).

[OrdinaryClay]

I don't understand what you mean by "functions" in this context.

I mean, that instead of asking if Christianity is wrong I would ask... What purposes do Christian beliefs serve? What does the individual (or society) use the beliefs for? Basically, I'm asking, "Why Christianity?" and looking for an answer in terms of final causation. I think this would give me a better understanding.

Ok. I think, while interesting, is probably another thread.

 

An example of a scientifically unpredictable event would be an event driven by a free willed agent.

Hmm... I admit that I lean towards the belief that most (if not all) phenomena are understandable and thus predictable, in principle. Presumably a free willed agent (e.g. human?) would have a mind with which to weigh options and decide. I don't see why minds must be put beyond the scope of understanding. And I imagine that some future psychologists could predict human behavior with much greater accuracy than current psychologists.

Do you believe in free will? I believe there is free will. I see no evidence or logical reason that behavior is completely predictive. Do you honestly believe you do not have the ability to act irrationally or unpredictably. Of course you do. Unpredictable behavior can be a powerful strategy in competition, in fact.

 

Which brings to mind ...

The Princess Bride -- battle of wits scene, iocane powder

 

 

If I believe that things cannot possibly be understood, then it feels like laziness and self-defeat to me.

I fail to see the relevance to the discussion. How we feel about it doesn't matter. It is or it isn't.

[OrdinaryClay]

How long, and for how much effort, do you allow for the scientific gap to exist before you conclude the supernatural? (all the while detecting and not predicting)

I don't.

 

mwc

Then you are simply begging the question, which is common. This is the standard, and fallacious, position of many materialists.

[Snakefoot]

I don't understand what you mean by "functions" in this context.

I mean, that instead of asking if Christianity is wrong I would ask... What purposes do Christian beliefs serve? What does the individual (or society) use the beliefs for? Basically, I'm asking, "Why Christianity?" and looking for an answer in terms of final causation. I think this would give me a better understanding.

Ok. I think, while interesting, is probably another thread.

 

An example of a scientifically unpredictable event would be an event driven by a free willed agent.

Hmm... I admit that I lean towards the belief that most (if not all) phenomena are understandable and thus predictable, in principle. Presumably a free willed agent (e.g. human?) would have a mind with which to weigh options and decide. I don't see why minds must be put beyond the scope of understanding. And I imagine that some future psychologists could predict human behavior with much greater accuracy than current psychologists.

Do you believe in free will? I believe there is free will. I see no evidence or logical reason that behavior is completely predictive. Do you honestly believe you do not have the ability to act irrationally or unpredictably. Of course you do. Unpredictable behavior can be a powerful strategy in competition, in fact.

 

Which brings to mind ...

The Princess Bride -- battle of wits scene, iocane powder

 

 

If I believe that things cannot possibly be understood, then it feels like laziness and self-defeat to me.

I fail to see the relevance to the discussion. How we feel about it doesn't matter. It is or it isn't.

C'mon, Clay, give us a specific example of a supernatural event (not a vague generalization).

[Snakefoot]

How long, and for how much effort, do you allow for the scientific gap to exist before you conclude the supernatural? (all the while detecting and not predicting)

I don't.

 

mwc

Then you are simply begging the question, which is common. This is the standard, and fallacious, position of many materialists.

C'mon, Clay, give us a specific example of a supernatural event (not a vague generalization).

[RankStranger]

Jesus is magic.

[Ouroboros]

No, If you were to tell a physicist that Quantum Mechanics was not predictive they would laugh at you.

Well, you're simply wrong.

 

It is actually one of the most precisely verified(through prior predictions, i.e. attempts at falsification) theories of nature we have.

You're confusing proving the theory with how predictable the events are.

 

The answer is, no, the quantum events are not predicable the way you think they are. The quantum events have probabilities, not "predictabilities."

 

Let me give you just one single quote from my particle physics encyclopedia (don't we all have one ). If you want one, it's called Q for Quantum, and it's written by John Gribbs. He's got a Ph.D in astrophysics, at Cambridge.

 

This is from the section about the Casimir effect:

Quantum uncertainty allows energy to appear spontaneously from nothing as long as it disappears again swiftly.

And for your information, spontaneously in this sense means random, without warning, without prediction, it just happens.

 

Just because something has a stochastic element to it does not make it unpredictable. On the contrary, the very definition of a probability distribution is that I can make predictions based on this distribution. This is after all the nature of Statistical Inference.

Hrm... Statistical distribution is not the same as predictable. You can't predict anything at a local level, you can only predict an estimate of a number in a larger are. It's like saying, "We will have zero, one, or two winners in Lotto, but we don't know who it will be." That is not very predictable, especially not when suddenly you have seven winners.

 

I just realized that I think our problem here is how we are using the word "predictable." We're using them in different ways. You use it for something that can be predicted in a general sense and on a larger scale; while I'm talking about specific events on a localized area. Using your definition: sure, quantum events are predictable because we know they happen. But using my definition: a single localized quantum event is not predicable at all. Neither definition is really wrong; we're just talking about predictability on different levels.

 

But the problem still exists, even if quantum events are predictable on a general statistical level (your definition), single events are not predictable on a localized level (my definition). So on a localized level, quantum events are magical and supernatural.

[Legion]

Ok. I think, while interesting, is probably another thread.

Um, okay boss. Have it your way.

 

Do you believe in free will? I believe there is free will. I see no evidence or logical reason that behavior is completely predictive. Do you honestly believe you do not have the ability to act irrationally or unpredictably. Of course you do. Unpredictable behavior can be a powerful strategy in competition, in fact.

Several things here...

 

I'm not sure about free will. In many ways I agree with Forrest Gump. I'm not certain that the existance free will implies that behavior is unpredictable. Destiny or choice, maybe it's both at the same time.

 

Also, a tactical note... What you've done here is ask a question about my beliefs and then presumed to tell me what I believe. That sends up red flags for me in terms of assessing your character.

 

I fail to see the relevance to the discussion. How we feel about it doesn't matter. It is or it isn't.

I think it is relevant. I think we often hold beliefs not only on the basis of their veracity, but also on the basis of how holding those beliefs makes us feel. In good faith, I've been honest with you.

[OrdinaryClay]

I have two observations from this thread ...

1) I'm very surprised by the level of certainty many seem to have regarding the non-existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It makes no logical sense. They may conclude that probabilistically they don't believe, but one can not conclude God is logically impossible.

2) The gate is frequently left open for the supernatural. Judging from reading other areas of this site. I think this is way under reported, too.

 

Personally I think people over compensate in their "certainty" of the non-existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

This thread segues nicely (no coincidence) into two other subjects; The Nature of Evidence, or how can one be "certain", and two, The Implications of the Existence of the Supernatural. You'll find the former here.

[RankStranger]

Specific examples of the supernatural, please.

 

And I'd like that super-sized.

[Shyone]

My definition is both testable and falsifiable.

 

Bullshit. You have made no claims that can be testable, and you know it. You are a liar.

 

 

 

Your paragraph is self conflicting. You claim "untestable and unfalsifiable", then you are claiming certainty when there are cases "that are testable and falsifiable". Obviously, if you claim that every case has been falsified then you are claiming that the supernatural can be falsified.

 

I said that when claims have been made that are testable and falsifiable, they have been shown to be natural occurrences or delusions. The claims have been falsified. The supernatural is meaningless.

 

 

In any event, you are making a positive claim regarding the set of cases and therefore your claim requires evidence.

 

You are the one making the positive claim. You claim there is a supernatural. You are full of fallacies, and you know it. That makes you a liar, dishonest, and your actions are completely consistent with apologetic methods.

[Snakefoot]

I have two observations from this thread ...

1) I'm very surprised by the level of certainty many seem to have regarding the non-existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It makes no logical sense. They may conclude that probabilistically they don't believe, but one can not conclude God is logically impossible.

2) The gate is frequently left open for the supernatural. Judging from reading other areas of this site. I think this is way under reported, too.

 

Personally I think people over compensate in their "certainty" of the non-existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

This thread segues nicely (no coincidence) into two other subjects; The Nature of Evidence, or how can one be "certain", and two, The Implications of the Existence of the Supernatural. You'll find the former here.

C'mon, Clay, give us a specific example of a supernatural event (not a vague generalization).