Burden of Proof - Part 2

[Lucretius]

Just tell me how can anything be “reliably deduced philosophically”. And explain what the “by another means” covers. It sounds extremely weak.

He’s talking about conclusions, not from the modern sciences, but from philosophy of nature and metaphysics.

FWI, Philosophy of nature considers nature in itself, while the modern sciences consider nature as controllable through technology, specifically her quantitative material aspects.

Christi pax.

 

[Lucretius]

So you are suggesting that the supernatural does not impinge on the natural world in any way. If it did, it could obviously be observed. It would have an effect on the natural world. You’d be able to claim that a particular occurance was supernatural.

But how you could declare something to be supernatural if you couldn’t observe it and it had no effect whatsoever is beyond me.

Mort is saying that an atheist who asserts that an alleged miraculous event really has natural causes, without actually identifying them, isn’t actually explaining anything, and unless he can demonstrate philosophical naturalism, can’t really claim to be more rational than someone who proposes a miraculous explanation.

In other words, what’s the difference between “but there might possibly be a supernatural explanation!” and “but there might possibly be a natural explanation!” Or at least that’s what I think he’s saying

Christi pax.

 

[Bradski]

Mort is saying that an atheist who asserts that an alleged miraculous event really has natural causes, without actually identifying them, isn’t actually explaining anything, and unless he can demonstrate philosophical naturalism, can’t really claim to be more rational than someone who proposes a miraculous explanation.

In other words, what’s the difference between “but there might possibly be a supernatural explanation!” and “but there might possibly be a natural explanation!” Or at least that’s what I think he’s saying

Christi pax.

I’m not the atheist who is making any claims.

I think it can be agreed that ‘natural’ is the normal state of affairs. And ‘supernatural’ would be when the normal state of affairs exhibits conditions that are not natural.

I just want to know how we can tell when this happens. There must be something observable that so eone can point to and say: ‘Look…something has happened that is not natural. Something has happened that is supernatural’.

If that is the case, then we have something which we can examine. We would have what someone would describe as evidence of the supernatural.

The point that has been made is that any such evidence has found to be far from anywhere near convincing.

 

[PRmerger]

I just want to know how we can tell when this happens. There must be something observable that so eone can point to and say: ‘Look…something has happened that is not natural. Something has happened that is supernatural’.

How about this example, which you’ve seen before, which was enough to shake atheist Michael Shermer’s skepticism “to the core”.

scientificamerican.com/article/anomalous-events-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/

Clearly he was able to observe something that fits this description: “Look…something has happened that is not natural”.

If he can tell when this happens, I’m sure you can, too.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Just tell me how can anything be “reliably deduced philosophically”. And explain what the “by another means” covers. It sounds extremely weak.

How about our own existence? “I think, therefore, I am.” I could be deprived of all five of my senses and still be able to think. Concluding that I exist because I think is a philosophical deduction, not an empirical one. Heck, even concluding that empirical testing is the most reliable way to acquire knowledge of facts is itself a philosophical conclusion that is not empirically verified.

Before you point out that these conclusions do not guarantee anything with absolute certainty, I’d like to point out that that was not my claim in the first place. My claim was that philosophy can give us accurate knowledge as reliably as any other school of thought. It would have to, since we have to make a philosohical conclusion first before we can go on to trusting and valuing empirical evidence. After all, the proposition that empirical evidence is the most reliable way to acquire knowledge is itself an exclusively philosophical proposition.

As for “by another means,” we can know things through a credible witness. As a matter of fact, I would argue that most of the knowledge we hold as individuals is had only on the authority of a credible witness. For example, have you been to Australia? No? Then, how do you know that Australia is a real place? You have not verified its existence through empirical testing. Oh, you HAVE been to Australia? How do you know you were really there and not somewhere else? Did you do your own cartography to map out the land you were occupying and conclude from that data that the land you were on matched the description of Australia?

But, most of our knowledge as individuals is like this. You believe Australia is a real place almost exclusively on the authority of what you deem to be credible witnesses.

 

[Mort_Alz]

So you are suggesting that the supernatural does not impinge on the natural world in any way.

No, I am not suggesting the supernatural does not intersect the natural. In fact, I explicitly stated otherwise.

If it did, it could obviously be observed. It would have an effect on the natural world. You’d be able to claim that a particular occurance was supernatural.

No. Its effects could be observed, but there would be no positive empirical evidence that could prove beyond any doubt that the occurance was supernatural since it could always be claimed that there is a natural explanation but that we don’t yet have a sufficient knowledge of the natural world to be able to explain it in those terms.

But how you could declare something to be supernatural if you couldn’t observe it and it had no effect whatsoever is beyond me.

Let me clarify, I think the supernatural can and does have an effect on the natural world.

It is not unreasonable to believe in the supernatural despite not being able to empirically prove it. I think it is an intrinsic part of the supernatural to be unable to be proven through empirical testing. It does not follow, therefore, that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the supernatural.

There are many appropriate analogies.

I’ve already mentioned the one about the 3D sphere intersecting a 2D character’s world. The 2D character has no way to prove to his comrades the existence of a 3rd dimension despite contact with a 3-dimensional object, but he has evidence for it.

Similarly, the author of a book obviously has an effect on his created world and its characters, but there would be no 100% reliable way for the characters to prove it was the author causing the effects. Not with their equivalent of empirical evidence anyway.

Now, none of these analogies are totally perfect (no analogy is, really), but I think they sufficiently answer your question about how the supernatural can interesect with the natural, but still have its existence be unprovable through empirical testing.

What I do not understand is the modern atheist’s disdain for philosophy even though he is subject to it in order to arrive at the conclusion that empirical data is trustworthy. The reliability of science in general is dependent on the reliability of the philosophy that got him to that knowledge.

 

[Bradski]

You are moving the goal posts, Mort. The fact that Australia exists or not is incidental to most people’s lives (with some exceptions…me being one). We aren’t talking about the everyday facts that we assume to be true. Notwithstanding that there actually is a large land mass in the southern hemisphere for which the generally accepted geographical name is Australia.

In other words, despite the fact that I could prove that Obama is the US president and a land mass south of the equator is called Australia, nobody should doubt these well known facts simply because they haven’t been to the US or Australia. And that is because we can base our lives on these facts being true and there will be no detrimental results resulting from that assumption.

But…you are talking about another realm of existence. Comparable to suggesting that Australia actually doesn’t exist. Or that Obama isn’t and never was the president.

For those sort of claims, the ones that suggest that the natural laws are sometimes broken, we do need evidence. And if you constantly claim that that is the case, then you yourself must have been convinced by (wait for it) evidence. Otherwise, what on earth are we talking about? Something that someone once told you about?

If that is the case, then Atlantis, little green men and Elvis serving long blacks at my local cafe are all up for discussion.

 

[Bradski]

And where is this modern atheistic disdain for philosophy?

And it must be said that philosophy is not concerned with the supernatural. The very term supernatural relates to aspects of existence that do not, empirically, associate themselves with the natural. And by definition, must be empirically available.

 

[Mort_Alz]

You are moving the goal posts, Mort.

By suggesting that we trust Australia exists without it being empirically proven to you or I as individuals?

The fact that Australia exists or not is incidental to most people’s lives (with some exceptions…me being one). We aren’t talking about the everyday facts that we assume to be true. Notwithstanding that there actually is a large land mass in the southern hemisphere for which the generally accepted geographical name is Australia.

In other words, despite the fact that I could prove that Obama is the US president and a land mass south of the equator is called Australia, nobody should doubt these well known facts simply because they haven’t been to the US or Australia. And that is because we can base our lives on these facts being true and there will be no detrimental results resulting from that assumption.

I believe it was Pascal who suggested that betting on God being real would not be detrimental, either. You are, of course, free to disagree.

But…you are talking about another realm of existence. Comparable to suggesting that Australia actually doesn’t exist. Or that Obama isn’t and never was the president.

For those sort of claims, the ones that suggest that the natural laws are sometimes broken, we do need evidence. And if you constantly claim that that is the case, then you yourself must have been convinced by (wait for it) evidence.

I never said there wasn’t evidence. I agree that it would be silly to believe something with no evidence. I just don’t think it can be proven empirically and I am suggesting it is unreasonable to require empirical proof (as opposed to evidence) in order for it to be a reasonable belief.

It was Hitchens (I think) who said or quoted, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I actually agree with him. And, I don’t think any empirical evidence can be very extraordinary. Please don’t forget, I think there IS empirical evidence for the miraculous. There are obviously its physical results which we could classify as evidence. But, you must invoke philosophy or something else to deduce that it is the result of the supernatural, since it could always be said, “this could have a physical explanation which we do not yet understand.” In fact, that is usually the card played whenever people point to natural events which seem not to have any natural explanation and call them “miracles.”

Again, the 2D character encountering the 3D object intersecting his 2D world has evidence for a 3rd dimensional, but he would not be able to deduce or prove it empirically.

If that is the case, then Atlantis, little green men and Elvis serving long blacks at my local cafe are all up for discussion.

You know, when I get to the point in conversation when an atheist or agnostic says, “OK. I can see how it could be reasonable to believe in God. But, where do I go from there? Which God? There are countless active religiions today and many more which have become extinct.”

I usually respond similar to how you’ve responded about the relevance of asking if Australia exists. Rarely do proponents of the supernatural think that it is a mirror of nature in that it has no mind. If something in the supernatural cares about interacting with humans, you’re probably safe deeming extinct religions irrelevant. Further, you can also probably dismiss religions of withering or minimal influence (say, Zoroastrianism or any highly localized tribal religion). You can include them if you’re one of those fluffy “all religions are true” kind of people, but serious inquirers usually dismiss that idea. I usually counsel them to consider the mainstream religion of wherever they live (which is usually Christianity or Islam among the people I talk to). Then, go on and consider its strongest rival religion. It’s silly to say there are no good rational reasons to believe one over the other. Converts, I think, are a testimony to this. Multiplicity of opinions about the supernatural is no argument against its existence.

 

[Mort_Alz]

And where is this modern atheistic disdain for philosophy?

And it must be said that philosophy is not concerned with the supernatural. The very term supernatural relates to aspects of existence that do not, empirically, associate themselves with the natural. And by definition, must be empirically available.

Many atheists and scientists directly dismiss philosophy as irrelevant. I’d say that’s pretty disdainful. I think Stephen Hawking is among them.

Philosophy IS concerned with the supernatural. Have you not heard of the God of the Philosophers? Usually named in reference to the effort to see what we can discern about God independent of the revelation in religion.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Bradski, what, to you, would be empirical evidence sufficient enough to cause you to believe in the supernatural? Can you think of a specific example?

Penn Jillette once admitted that even if he directly saw something which, to him, appeared miraculous, he would sooner go check himself into a mental health facility to see if he was insane before he would believe in the supernatural.

 

[tonyrey]

And where is this modern atheistic disdain for philosophy?

And it must be said that philosophy is not concerned with the supernatural. The very term supernatural relates to aspects of existence that do not, empirically, associate themselves with the natural. And by definition, must be empirically available.

Philosophy is concerned with every interpretation of reality, Brad, ranging from solipsism and idealism to naturalism and nihilism. Sense data are just one aspect of existence. We can’t analyse our beliefs, principles, values, emotions, goals and decisions with a microscope!

 

[tonyrey]

Bradski, what, to you, would be empirical evidence sufficient enough to cause you to believe in the supernatural? Can you think of a specific example?

Penn Jillette once admitted that even if he directly saw something which, to him, appeared miraculous, he would sooner go check himself into a mental health facility to see if he was insane before he would believe in the supernatural.

In that case he was already unbalanced with regard to his restricted view of reality which consists of nothing but physical objects, considers persons to be fictions and rejects free will as an illusion because we are merely biological computers!

 

[Mort_Alz]

In that case he was already unbalanced with regard to his restricted view of reality which consists of nothing but physical objects, considers persons to be fictions and rejects free will as an illusion because we are merely biological computers!

It certainly means that he rejects the supernatural as being philosophically impossible (or at least laughably improbable.)

 

[Lucretius]

I’m not the atheist who is making any claims.

That’s why I used the third person in my post

I think it can be agreed that ‘natural’ is the normal state of affairs. And ‘supernatural’ would be when the normal state of affairs exhibits conditions that are not natural.

I agree that this is a good rule of thumb, but it isn’t essential to nature to be normal: for example, in natural selection and genetics, a mutation that turns out to be beneficial to an organism is very rare.

I just want to know how we can tell when this happens. There must be something observable that so eone can point to and say: ‘Look…something has happened that is not natural. Something has happened that is supernatural’.

If that is the case, then we have something which we can examine. We would have what someone would describe as evidence of the supernatural.

I think the cause of the problem that Mort is pointing out, is that modern people in general, and of course naturalists in particular, don’t have an understanding or concept of nature. What is nature?

If water parted on the Red sea, the naturalist might want to say that there is an unknown aspect of the nature of water, or the wind, or the interaction between the two, that caused the event. With an actual understanding, a concept, of the nature of water and wind, especially at a very specific and meaningful time of occurrence, we can conclude that such an event is not natural, but above such.

The Christian see the dead rise, and falls to his knees, while a non-believer sees the dead rise, a propose, without evidence, that the dead weren’t really dead, or that there is a natural cause not discovered that caused the event, or some other excuse not to believe.

In other words, just like most things (except maybe basic logic and mathematics), if one has a motivation to deny it, he’ll come up with a theory to excuse himself from it.

The point that has been made is that any such evidence has found to be far from anywhere near convincing.

I disagree. Once you did your mind of the influences of philosophical naturalism, it is pretty easy to see the strong evidence for the existence of miracles throughout history.

Christi pax.

 

[Lucretius]

In that case he was already unbalanced with regard to his restricted view of reality which consists of nothing but physical objects, considers persons to be fictions and rejects free will as an illusion because we are merely biological computers!

It depends what he means by “physical.” An Aristotlean, Platonist, or Spinozian (neutral monism) would propose that nature can have mental, qualitative, and/or mechanical aspects.

Christi pax.

 

[inocente]

Penn Jillette once admitted that even if he directly saw something which, to him, appeared miraculous, he would sooner go check himself into a mental health facility to see if he was insane before he would believe in the supernatural.

Seems very sensible - before accepting something inexplicable, a good witness should rule out whether he’s delusional, hallucinating or mistaken.

I too reject lots of the supernatural, including astral projection, clairvoyance, ectoplasm, elves, ESP, fairies, Father Christmas, ghosts, poltergeists, precognition, psychokinesis, reincarnation, remote viewing, telepathy and UFOs.

Only unbalanced people accept absolutely every supernatural thing which others tell us is real.

 

[Lucretius]

Seems very sensible - before accepting something inexplicable, a good witness should rule out whether he’s delusional, hallucinating or mistaken.

I too reject lots of the supernatural, including astral projection, clairvoyance, ectoplasm, elves, ESP, fairies, Father Christmas, ghosts, poltergeists, precognition, psychokinesis, reincarnation, remote viewing, telepathy and UFOs.

Only unbalanced people accept absolutely every supernatural thing which others tell us is real.

Interesting point that I think relevant to Mort’s case: if we ever found strong evidence for psychokinesis, etc., then we wouldn’t consider these things supernatural anymore, but a species of the natural. They would be redefined * as natural. C. S. Lewis makes a case for this point in his * Abolition of Man: google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.basicincome.com/bp/files/The_Abolition_of_Man-C_S_Lewis.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjXzozuh5LRAhUERCYKHZmABKUQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNEDvn8VK4lwA3dimiBBdVpFlIV0wA&sig2=lPRiiE1MygxrLfczfyf_gw

Christi pax.

 

[PRmerger]

And where is this modern atheistic disdain for philosophy?

Physicist and atheist Laurence Krauss clearly has disdain for philosophy:

"Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, “those that can’t do, teach, and those that can’t teach, teach gym.” And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics whatsoever, and I doubt that other philosophers read it because it’s fairly technical. And so it’s really hard to understand what justifies it. And so I’d say that this tension occurs because people in philosophy feel threatened—and they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn’t.”

 

[PRmerger]

It was Hitchens (I think) who said or quoted, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I actually agree with him.

Actually, it was Carl Sagan, and don’t be fooled into believing this dogma.

It’s not true.

Extraordinary claims require SUFFICIENT evidence.

All claims do, regardless of the quality.

From William Lane Crag re the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” dogma:

This sounds so commonsensical, doesn’t it? But in fact it is demonstrably false. Probability theorists studying what sort of evidence it would take to establish a highly improbable event came to realize that if you just weigh the improbability of the event against the reliability of the testimony, we’d have to be skeptical of many commonly accepted claims. Rather, what’s crucial is the probability that we should have the evidence we do if the extraordinary event had not occurred. This can easily offset any improbability of the event itself. reasonablefaith.org/steph…us-of-nazareth