Does anyone still believe in the supernatural?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 12/26/2020 at 9:58 PM, Crove said:

I left Christianity and religion but I never ceased to believe in the supernatural.  Does an ex-Christian turn their back completely on them?

 

My belief in the supernatural changed a little bit though, in terms of the source, where it's coming from.  Now, I don't know where it's coming from and my head is in pretzels just trying to figure it out.

Being an exchristian is just that. You no longer believe in a Christ based religion. A lot of us still have a semblance of belief in something "unknown". I suppose that could be defined as supernatural. But I think the overall main theme is that we don't believe in any specific dogma dictating way that unknown is. 

 

 

Here is the kicker. If there is anything you are not going to be able to figure it out. That is why religions began in the first place. Trying to explain the mysteries of the world. I suppose we will all know for sure when our time is up. 

[poci]

2 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Could you elaborate on this idea?  I don't follow what you are trying to say.  I could imagine several reasons for denying the supernatural, so any claim that there is only one possible reason seems incorrect.

No. Justify Epistemic Duties then.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, poci said:

No. Justify Epistemic Duties then.

 

Eh?? I'm confused as to your line of reasoning in this thread.

[poci]

Just now, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Eh?? I'm confused as to your line of reasoning in this thread.

What reasoning? I just asked how you justify epestemic duties. Your atheist right?

 

[LogicalFallacy]

52 minutes ago, poci said:

What reasoning? I just asked how you justify epestemic duties. Your atheist right?

 

 

Yes, I'm atheist. What has that got to do with anything in this thread, and what the hell does epistemic duties have to do with the question Wertbag was asking you about you concluding there being only one reason to deny the supernatural? 

 

You said:

Quote

"Peps that don’t keep thinking of cartoons when they here it and think that’s what it is. That’s the only reason really peps deny the supernatural. Also I don’t even like the word ether, it’s not well defined i don’t think."

 

You refused to clarify your statement above, and I agree with Wertbag, it's unclear what you are getting at, then you ask about epistemic duties.

[tiredofwork]

I don't believe the word supernatural is defined well enough for me to have one view on it or another. I guess I've been tainted by Sextus Empiricus... My thought is that depending on how supernatural is defined, I can believe it is possible, or believe it is not likely, or believe that I genuinely don't know enough to have a view. If we say supernatural is an inanimate energy, without going further, I would say it is possible, but that I am agnostic on the question. If we say it's ghosts, I'd say I'm skeptical and would be a practical atheist towards the question. If we say extraterrestrials, I would say I am a potential believer, depending on what kind of extraterrestrial life we talk about. If it's no more advanced than humanity I would rate it more likely than not, but would not affect my day-to-day life. If we define supernatural as a physical reality that binds everything together, I think it's very possible, but we get into epistemology and that's a whole field I'm not qualified to talk to, so while it is possible, it goes back to the definition problem and underlying assumptions. Overall I'd say panpsychism does have some supporters, and also detractors. I am not qualified to speak to the subject, but am hopeful there is something fundamental that can be used to influence day-to-day life at a future state in humanity's future - but that state is not today. I also read "Agnosticism: A Very Short Introduction" and couldn't recommend it enough. There's a section that talks about how we could view religion/spirituality/mythology as non-reality stories/morality/connection tales, etc. and how it might be better placed in that category than a truth claim, and in that sense I would say that believing in the supernatural if it is used as part of a worldview (i.e. Druidism, etc.) that focus on personal improvement and consideration of natural resources would be great. I've thought about doing rituals for my mental health, and to refocus my energies on the world. In that sense it is practical to act like it exists, even if it doesn't, and understanding the difference between the two.

[Joshpantera]

On 3/23/2021 at 8:59 PM, tiredofwork said:

My thought is that depending on how supernatural is defined, I can believe it is possible, or believe it is not likely, or believe that I genuinely don't know enough to have a view. If we say supernatural is an inanimate energy, without going further, I would say it is possible, but that I am agnostic on the question. If we say it's ghosts, I'd say I'm skeptical and would be a practical atheist towards the question. If we say extraterrestrials, I would say I am a potential believer, depending on what kind of extraterrestrial life we talk about.

 

The term supernatural does tend to cast a rather large net. And in each case it seems that if true and correct, then what people are calling supernatural would all be things that are merely part of natural existence, if they in fact do exist - any god, any ghosts, or whatever. Once it's proven to exist, it's simply a natural feature of existence and it isn't super or beyond anything else which is also and equally natural. A person would be natural. Ghost's would natural. Hell, gods would be natural if they really existed. 

 

On 3/23/2021 at 8:59 PM, tiredofwork said:

If we define supernatural as a physical reality that binds everything together, I think it's very possible, but we get into epistemology and that's a whole field I'm not qualified to talk to, so while it is possible, it goes back to the definition problem and underlying assumptions. Overall I'd say panpsychism does have some supporters, and also detractors. I am not qualified to speak to the subject, but am hopeful there is something fundamental that can be used to influence day-to-day life at a future state in humanity's future - but that state is not today.

 

Same thing. If true, then simply natural. 

 

So supernatural tends to draw on the idea of things that would be potentially part of natural existence if firmly proven true. But which are unproven and so take the term "supernatural." A more appropriate term would probably be: "As of yet unproven." 

 

Do you believe in things, "as of yet unproven?" 

 

Taken down to that level, my answer is that "belief" is too strong a word for any of the examples given. I don't believe with conviction things which are clearly, "as of yet unproven," or "supernatural" as some would frame it. Open to the possibility, sure. Believe, no way. 

[Wertbag]

On 3/25/2021 at 3:26 PM, Joshpantera said:

A more appropriate term would probably be: "As of yet unproven."

I would think it is more than that. "Supernatural" shouldn't include things which are plausible but as of yet unproven. Supernatural are ideas which break our current understanding of how the universe works. For example dark matter/energy is unproven but I doubt many would categorise it as supernatural. Or cryptozoology, which would not be supernatural, as unusual creatures existing wouldn't change any natural laws. 

New natural claims look to expand on our existing knowledge, while supernatural say our understanding of reality is wrong.

[midniterider]

44 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

I would think it is more than that. "Supernatural" shouldn't include things which are plausible but as of yet unproven. Supernatural are ideas which break our current understanding of how the universe works. For example dark matter/energy is unproven but I doubt many would categorise it as supernatural. Or cryptozoology, which would not be supernatural, as unusual creatures existing wouldn't change any natural laws. 

New natural claims look to expand on our existing knowledge, while supernatural say our understanding of reality is wrong.

 

Supernatural (to me) is not something natural and merely waiting for science to discover and explain. It's something that will remain unexplainable by science. Maybe because it is baloney, or maybe because it is some part of reality that does not conform to natural laws or the scientific method so eludes being tested. Supernatural is a valid word to me in the similar vein of paranormal, magical, psychic, occult and mystic (taken from Oxford/Google)

[Wertbag]

3 hours ago, midniterider said:

It's something that will remain unexplainable by science

The majority of supernatural claims I can think of, are claimed to have real world interactions.  Whether it be reading minds, moving objects with your mind, prayer changing things in a positive way, speaking to the dead or ghosts appearing and moving objects.  As soon as a claim starts interacting then we can test the validity of the claim.

If the claim is impossible to know, then from where did the knowledge of the claim come from?

[midniterider]

31 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

The majority of supernatural claims I can think of, are claimed to have real world interactions.  Whether it be reading minds, moving objects with your mind, prayer changing things in a positive way, speaking to the dead or ghosts appearing and moving objects.  As soon as a claim starts interacting then we can test the validity of the claim.

If the claim is impossible to know, then from where did the knowledge of the claim come from?

 

Maybe it's more of a what-if than a claim. 

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, Wertbag said:

I would think it is more than that. "Supernatural" shouldn't include things which are plausible but as of yet unproven. Supernatural are ideas which break our current understanding of how the universe works. For example dark matter/energy is unproven but I doubt many would categorise it as supernatural. Or cryptozoology, which would not be supernatural, as unusual creatures existing wouldn't change any natural laws. 

New natural claims look to expand on our existing knowledge, while supernatural say our understanding of reality is wrong.

 

I just mean ghosts or anything like that. If it were proven somehow, it wouldn't be supernatural. Just natural. But yes, I think I should correct it to "as of yet unproven cases of breaking natural law." 

[Dawn]

I think the problem with Christianity is that too many Christians are turning to the Occult and other religions and therefore are dabbling in all of them, including Satanism. 

So I guess it is to say, I was Christened at birth, I just left the church for other reasons, mainly indoctrination of facebook ...instead of bringing people to Christ, they are leading people to an organization of greedy billionaires who sold them out long before they even got there.

[Tsathoggua9]

I have always enjoyed reading about the paranormal / occult / "Fortean phenomena". I'm neither a complete skeptic nor a true believer, I just find it to be entertaining.