It seems to me that if you equate “supernatural” with “Inaccessible (or unknowable) from our plane of existence,” then there certainly could be such a thing as the supernatural.

How? If something is inaccessible and exerts no influence over our universe, how can we ever know it exists, and how is its existence any different from it not existing?

E.g. It’s certainly possible that a supernatural deity that somehow intervened in our natural world would have the appearance of natural law.

Only if said deity set up all the laws at the beginning and then exerted no additional influence over anything. The universe looks exactly the way we would expect it to look if it had evolved from its beginning according to natural laws.

If a deity intervened in the universe after its initial laws were set in place, then such intervention should be detectable, at least in principle.

That is, the effect would be measurable, but the cause (the “Why did this happen?”) would not be.

And a measureable effect with a hypothetical cause is still a genuine part of science. There is no reason to believe that the cause could not one day be measured in some fashion, unless one indulges in magical thinking.

Isn’t it true that much of science has given up explaining “Why” Mother Nature behaves the way she does?

Erm … no, not really.

One of the main drivers in theoretical physics today is that some of our current theories (such as the Standard Model) are mainly descriptive. New, better, theories are being sought to oncompass not only the descriptive theories we have now, but also to explain how and why (for instance) subatomic particles have the properties that they do.

In other words, our natural laws could be nothing more than a supernatural creation.

In principle, this is true, but only in a way that is entirely untestable. If the laws of nature that we observe today were magicked into existence at the beginning of the universe, we would have no way of distinguishing this from some exotic quantum phase-change arising from a random fluctuation of whatever it was that existed at the time.

Once you have identified all the natural laws, there’s just nothing more to be learned.

What, you mean apart from gaining an understanding of how those laws gave rise to the diverse and complex universe that we observe today?

Phil Plait you can’t even see the entire universe yet label it as all there is.

Not really. There are plenty of things awaiting discovery. However, claims of supernatural stuff influencing the world in which we live don’t hold water. Claims of “relams beyond” or whatever are mere excuses to avoid having to provide actual, y’know, evidence.

But, in the end, anything that doesn’t impact on the real world that we can see and measure might as well not exist at all.

What exists does not depend on whether or not you have laid eyes on it or seen empirical evidence for it.

True, but irrelevant.

To say nothing exists with such surety is pretty close minded for a scientist.

Not really. Maybe Phil’s reasoning eludes you, but he states it pretty clearly. If something has an effect on the real world, then it is natural. If something does not have an effect on the real world, then it is no different from something that does not exist.

Perhaps you can follow this article up with unquestionable proof that this is the only universe by drawing circles in the CMB.

If other universes exist, they are irrelevant unless we can observe them or unless they exert some influence on our universe.

I think Richard Carrier covers your objections quite thoroughly in the essay I linked to in comment #10.

The demonic firewall where I work would not let me follow that link.

He uses examples from fiction like ‘Forbidden Planet’ & ‘Harry Potter’ to show how one could determine whether a natural or supernatural theory would best explain the observed phenomena.

I still have a problem with this.

If a supernatural “explanation” is going to be of any use, it must be verifiable. If it is verifiable, it must make some predictions that can be tested by experiment or observation. And if it is accessible to such testing, then the phenomenon is a part of the world and therefore not really supernatural after all. Do you see?

In the world of Harry Potter, for example, magic is a real part of the world. It has real consequences, and it follows a real set of rules. Its existence is open to verification, so magic in that milieu is (effectively) just another natural force. And if it is real, and predictable and bound by rules, then it can be investigated by science.

So, in terms of arriving at a theory that best explains a phenomenon, I don’t agree that the supernatural (i.e. that which defies or transcends natural laws) gets us anywhere. When a supernatural phenomenon is shown to be real, it becomes natural.

Annexian’s error (in my view) was apparently to suppose that modern science owes some kind of debt to the magical thinking of alchemy and so on. And that therefore there might still be some merit to magical thinking.

Plus, Annexian’s comment started out with a blatantly wrong statement.

I agree with Phil, though.

Isn’t it true that much of science has given up explaining “Why” Mother Nature behaves the way she does? In other words, our natural laws could be nothing more than a supernatural creation. Once you have identified all the natural laws, there’s just nothing more to be learned.

Tim

I think Richard Carrier covers your objections quite thoroughly in the essay I linked to in comment #10.

He uses examples from fiction like ‘Forbidden Planet’ & ‘Harry Potter’ to show how one could determine whether a natural or supernatural theory would best explain the observed phenomena.

In Annexian’s defense, many of the early scientists were alchemists. Of course, back then, prevailing theory was that you could turn lead into gold (and various other transformations) if you could just find the right sequence of steps. Examining the elements to figure out this sequence led to discoveries about the elements and their true nature. Yes, they were alchemists, but they were also alchemists whose work eventually disproved alchemy.

Had they known then what we know now, I doubt any of them would waste time trying to turn lead into gold. Hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy to mock people in the past for not knowing what is common knowledge today. I’m sure scientists 300 years from now will mock scientists of today for believing Theory X to be true when Theory Y (figured out 200 years in our future) explains the world so much better.

Similarly, not every theology accepts the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

Such as what?

The belief that there is one and only one correct message contained in an sacred text is called fundamentalism.

Wowe, so, what you seem to be saying here is that the bible can say anything you want it to say, and you can ignore anything in it that you don’t like. Is it?

Because, if that is the case, what good is it at all?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/06/10/how-to-be-inoculated-against-antivax-conventions/#comments

What it looks like is that you made some unsupported assertions, dismissed some of the refutation of your argument (again, without any logical or evidentiary basis) and then slunk off with your tail between your legs when your arguments were shown to be the emptiness that they are.

You have still not made a convincing case to aupport any of the assertions you made on that thread.

And yet here you seem to be making similar assertions, again without any actual support.

Hey, maybe I can try that game, too! What do you think? Here goes:

Religious people are all purple!

People who believe in ghosts don’t wipe their bottoms after defaecating!

Wow, this is really liberating. You can say just any old crap if you don’t have to support it with evidence.

So, Ms Noen, are you going to engage in a debate and actually support what you have claimed, or are you merely going to fire off a few more blanks and then slink back into the undergrowth? Again.

The first dogma of atheism:

“there’s no such thing as the supernatural. Either something is natural — that is, part of the Universe — or else it doesn’t exist.”

Which is of course either a tautology, all events must be natural events in the same way that all unmarried men must be bachelors, or else it is unfalsifiable in which case it is simply an article of faith that one must accept dogmatically.

Eh?

So, what are you saying here? That the supernatural really does exist, but that it can never be measured or reproducibly observed? Or what?

It seems to me that it is not dogma to demand that something must be observable to be considered real!

The second dogma of atheism:

“atheism can never fail, it can only be failed.”

What makes you think this is dogmatic?

Atheism can very easily be failed, by any god suddenly revealing their existence. Then (I would bet) pretty nearly all atheists will suddenly become religious. Because religion will have suddenly become the rational thing to do.

The third dogma of atheism:

“Two legs good, four legs bad!”

No, no, that’s “four legs good, two legs better”. Or were you deliberately misquoting Orwell?

And what exactly makes you think this has anything to do with the discussion at hand?

PS, Woof, woof!

Further to Bob’s comment: The only defining feature of all atheists is the lack of belief in any gods. Just as the only defining feature of Christians is the belief in a God and his son, their savior, Jesus. Beyond that, the various shapes of belief (and lack thereof) and lifestyle are as varied as they come.
Both Neon and everyone else was making the same ridiculous mistake of arguing against something that wasn’t being defended by the other side.

What should be said against Neon, however, is that the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one who is saying a phenomenon is real. If I claim I have an invisible pink unicorn hovering above my head at all times, the burden of proof is most definitely on me to show the truth of my claim, not on the rest of the world, no matter how adamantly they may believe there is no invisible pink unicorn. It is impossible to prove a negative because we cannot know everything. Hence the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of the interactions you are claiming God has with the world.
If you are claiming God has no interaction with the world, why the heck would you believe in it? If the only thing the Christian god provides the world is a moral code by which to live, why not just believe Jesus was a wise philosopher instead of the son of god? Why does he need to have been resurrected for all the good advice he gave to be meaningful?

PS. Nigel Depledge you’re awesome

Plenty of supernatural events happen.

Such as what?

How about you cite one event that was unequivocally supernatural?

They just don’t happen frequently and predictably enough for the standards “Professional De-bunkers” set.

What does this actually mean, though?

Jusrt because something isn’t predictable doesn’t mean it cannot be measured. Look at earthquakes. We’re rubbish at predicting them but they are nevertheless real. They don’t happen all that frequently either (well, large ones don’t) but that does not stop us from measuring them and recording them and formulating theories about how and why they occur.

Look at the atmospheric phenomenon known as sprites. These were doubted until fairly recently, because there was no evidence for them apart from hearsay. Then someone succeeded in recording them happening and they are now a part of mainstream scientific investigation.

It’s not a question of anyone setting unreasonable standards. It is a question of the claimed supernatural phenomena not meeting any reasonable standard of evidence at all.

Your “argument” is nothing more than a plea for special treatment. Why should “supernatural” phenomena be held to lesser standards of evidence than anything else in science?

People with just as much respect and “Science” backing them used to prove that people couldn’t go faster than 60 mph and all sorts of other stuff.

So?

They were wrong, and their claims were not necessarily widely accepted at the time anyway. More often than not, their claims were pure speculation.

In what way is this an argument for the existence of supernatural phenomena?

But, find a “Cryptid”, (Cealocanth, Giant Squid) prove things like using the skin to read via heat sensitivity, etc. it no longer becomes “the paranormal” so in essence they’ve set a standard of “Proof” that can never be met.

Eh?

Does this sentence actually mean anything?

The strictest application of the Scientific Method you could say it’s “Inconclusive” that the sun will “Rise” (Relative to the Earth’s rotation, Mr Wizard) tomorrow

Now you touch on the nature of knowledge, and this is an important question.

We know that the sun exists, and we know that it and the Earth both orbit the barycentre of the solar system. We can have a great deal of confidence in the prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow, but we cannot know it in any absolute sense of the word. We can, however, know beyond reasonable doubt that it will do so.

Now, ask yourself: is it reasonable to doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow? No. Is it reasonable to doubt the existence of ghosts or spirits or what-have-you? Yes. Why? Because there exists for the former a reliable record of its existence and past behaviour, coupled to a strong theoretical basis for expercting it to continue said behaviour. For the latter, there is no evidence that such things exist at all, there is no logical argument that predicts their existence or postulates their properties, and there is no reason to assume that such things exist.

because it “Might” (very unlikely for a long time, then a near certainty, right?) go Red Giant overnight and fry us.

It will take years for the sun to turn into a red giant. It won’t be an overnight process.

This last bit some companies that made a certain plant product used forever since the connection to cancer was “Inconclusive”…

I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

Nice the FAITH you have in vaccine corporations, but oh, well…

I have every reason to have confidence that the risk of being harmed receiving a vaccine is far outweighed by the risk of being harmed by not doing so. I have an 8-week old son, and he is to receive his first vaccinations this week.

You, OTOH, have never explained why you doubt the integrity of the manufacturers of vaccines and the regulatory bodies that exist to protect the populace of nations in the civilised world from purveyors of quack cures.

Take note also that all modern science sprang from Sorcerers and Alchemists.

Now you’re just making stuff up.

Modern science has indeed received contributions from people who believed some strange stuff. Aristotle, for instance, had some ideas that crippled our understanding of the world for nearly 2 millenia. But most of modern scientific knowledge sprang from people doubting the sorcery and alchemy of received or revealed “wisdom”.

Even the major players, like say Newton who read and wrote more on Alchemy than Astronomy

Newton is probably the most famous example. His faith in alchemy was wrong, but that did not prevent him from formulating some good science. Can you think of any others?

– most had big ties like going to seances, magick cult clubs, etc. And I don’t just mean the 1800s or earlier, try Jack Parsons:-)

Who?

Furthermore it was mystical thinking and some wild tryings that led to most early major discoveries and I’d bet most modern ones too…

What rubbish.

Did Faraday deduce an understanding of electricity by trying magic, or by rational experiment? Did Maxwell formulate his famous equations based on careful consideration of experimentally-acquired data or by magic ritual? Did Galileo conclude that not all solar-system objects revolve about the earth by careful observation or by wishful thinking?

(they are just afraid of being “Discredited” so easier to hide behind “The Groupthink”) “If my lab was like these modern ones I’d have never discovered penicillin” is a quote I believe from it’s discoverer, Alexander Fleming and I heard it in a science class, not some “Supernatural” book.

Yes, because if he had been more careful, he would not have left plates of bacteria where they could get contaminated by molds. THis does not support your thesis in any way.

No-one will deny that serendipity has played a role in scientific discoveries, but that is completely different from suggesting that magical thinking has achieved any improvement in our understanding of the universe.

For some reason, this tends to show up in the comic pages a lot. You will see different artists suddenly use the same idea, meme or reference … I guess it’s a cultural gestalt.

Well, they’ve posited both dark matter and dark energy, but haven’t actually detected them. They detect the EFFECTS produced by them.

Yes. And?

Dark matter and energy are hypothetical substances posited to explain measured effects that defy our previous understanding of the way gravity behaves. But that understanding has stood up to all the tests it has been put to in the preceding 80 years or so, so we know it cannot be grossly wrong.

What else is “out there” that we cannot yet detect.

Ah, the old “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio” argument. Sadly, this is hogwash. It doesn’t matter what else might be yet undiscovered. If a postulated phenomenon has no effect on the real world, then it might as well not exist. Even dreams and hallucinations exist as patterns of electrical activity in a person’s brain that can be measured.

The term “supernatural” is a bit off. Paranormal fits better, as it implies something outside our normal understanding.

What difference does it make what you call it? Until a phenomenon has been shown to have a real effect that can be measured or recorded, then it is just black-magic mumbo-jumbo.

People might say the same thing about the boundaries of theoretical physics such as M-theory and string theory, but these at least incorporate our current theories of (respectively) cosmology and particle physics, so they do make predictions that can be verified. It is just that the data we have at the moment does not allow us to distinguish M-theory from Big Bang theory; nor string theory from the Standard Model.

By contrast, all claims about the supernatural violate known physics. They often require the existence of “realms” to which we do not have access, except occasionally. Or the existence of “energy” that can only be detected sometimes or by some people. Or of “forces” in addition to the known four, but that have never shown up in any controlled experiment.

What is an atheist? Is it someone with no belief in God/gods or it it someone who has a belief that there is no God/gods?

Really guys, come on, we all know this is a silly / non question! Neon – you’ve said repeatedly that different Christians believe different things and that atheists should not attack one Christian for holding the different beliefs of other Christians. Fine. You’re right.

But please, understand that atheism is a fast growing belief system and is probably comparable to 1st, 2nd and/or 3rd century Christianity, that is a huge developing mix of different people and groups thinking different things. Hell, I would call myself an agnostic atheist under current conventions but would have to say in the last 20 years I’ve been an agnostic, an atheist, a don’t care, a born again Christian, a simple Presbyterian and possibly several other things as well as my thoughts on the subject have developed.

And really, your attempt to create a single homogenous group of “atheists” and to define what they believe by going back to the root of the word is simply – and I’m sorry to have to say this – embarassing. It’s a bit like saying a phobia is a fear of, and a phobe therefore someone who has a fear of, something and homo as in homogenous means the same, hence a homophobe is someone who has a fear of the same rather than how it is used to mean, a hatred of the different.

As for the comments disagreeing with Neon. Come on people, you’re accepting his preconception / strawman by trying to tell him “this is what an atheist believes”. No it isn’t. We’re not a group with a centrally defined set of opinions and views and approaches, we’re a heterogenous group defing a new world view which is a work in progress. Some people call themselves atheists because they have no belief that there is a god, others call themselves atheists and do actively believe that there is no god. The word hasn’t been copyrighted and so is used by different people to mean different things.

So whose side am I on? Both and neither. As some Russian once said – “I subscribe to no man’s opinion, I have some of my own”. And perhaps that is the base start point of most agnostics, atheists and all the 1,001 other flavours of non-religionsist.

But I’d have to say that my biggest beef is this. If I believe anything it is this. Nobody gets to tell anybody else what it is they believe. So Neon, get off your high horse and stop telling atheists what atheism is or is not. WE define that. When we know, we’ll let you know. And everybody else, perhaps we could extend religionists the same curtesy and disagree with what the people we are arguing with believe and not some crude approximation thereto.

P.S. Sorry for the lecturing, knows best tone. Big character flaw I’m working on.

P.P.S. I’m posting this before a mixed group of intelligent, argumentative, opionated people. Yikes! I wonder just how badly the arguments will be ripped apart? I have to say posting ones opinion before a group like this with an open invitation to be … ahem … corrected, is a scary thing to do and certainly a way of honing ones own thoughts if one is prepared to take points made on board! I’ll check back in later!

To quote from that essay:
“In short, I argue “naturalism” means, in the simplest terms, that every mental thing is entirely caused by fundamentally nonmental things, and is entirely dependent on nonmental things for its existence. Therefore, “supernaturalism” means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things.”

By that definition there could be something ‘supernatural’ but it could be investigated by science. There just isn’t any good evidence for the existence of something ‘supernatural’.

Unfortunately, this assumes that there is something qualitatively different about mental experience as opposed to physical processes. And yet all mental phenomena should – in principle – reduce to physical processes. Even such things as dreams and hallucinations.

Additionally, this idea gives us no way to distinguish any “supernatural phenomenon” from an hallucination. Both are mental things that cannot be reduced to nonmental things.

Finally, this argument also implies that all supernatural phenomena arise within the mind alone, and this does not fit with all of the claims that are made for ghosts and suchlike (aura photography and similar such tricks that supposedly provide “evidence” for the supernatural).

It seems to be a very hand wavy way to explain away a lack of evidence (and in some cases I’ve seen it border on ‘a lack of evidence is evidence that he exists’).

I think Adams (1979) gave us the best formulation of this argument:

“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says god, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”

“But,” says man, “the babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It proves you exist, therefore, you don’t”.

“Oh dear,” says god, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Many leading theologians consider this argument to be a load of dingoes’ kidneys . . .

Time travel exists and is testable with atomic clocks, at least in the forwards direction. Getting back is a bit of an issue admittedly.

There is currently little or no direct evidence for wormholes. However given they are not a theory in and of themselves, but rather are a predicted phenomena of a theory that in other phenomena has made many valid predictions, they are a reasonable thing to work out how to look for.

As far as gravitons and gravity waves, I am glad that someone is certain that they don’t exist. I can’t think of a single physicist who is absolutely sure that they do. If physicists were sure they existed then it would be fairly pointless spending extremely large sums of money trying to find out if they exist or not and instead the money could be spent investigating things that were in doubt.

You do of course realise that research scientists don’t generally research things that they already believe to be completely true, as it kind of misses the point of the entire exercise.

Oh, and Ema Nymton – I second you on that motion…. ;]

“[waffle]

“Atheism is not the absence of belief but a positive assertion of god’s non-existence.”

No neon. This is wrong. Atheism is an absence of belief, for myself and millions of others. Why can’t you understand that? No amount of word games will changed that. I’m tired of you telling me what I believe when I don’t! This is ironic because that is what you accuse atheists of doing yourself.

I do not claim that there are no gods. I claim that I don’t believe in gods because there is no evidence for them. It is not rational to entertain the possibility of existance of a being if no evidence for it has ever existed. The burden of proof is on those who assert that something exists despite the lack of evidence for it. Do you understand?

Now if you want to talk about anti-theists, fine. They assert that which they cannot know in the same way as theists. You talk about faith. The rationalist will reject faith entirely out of principle. When you do that, atheism is the only rational conclusion because it does not require faith.