@Neithan asked: Do you accept that the supernatural is metaphysically possible?

[Neithan]

There is nothing to talk about

Only if you are assuming that empirically verifiable hypotheses are the only things worth talking about. That’s scientism at its most extreme (espoused by Prof. Richard Dawkins). Philosophy covers much more than this; but I’m not an expert in it, either. It is fundamentally begging the question to assume that ontology is limited to empirical observation.

then the proposition “X is good” is meaningless.

It’s not meaningless; but as you know there is an entire branch of philosophy (ethics) devoted to exploring it. It becomes extremely difficult to define when attributed to an eternal, non-physical absolute.

Someone who places false physical information (dinosaur bones) into incorrect geographical layers.

Huh?

Either the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc… are valid and reliable, or they are not. If they are valid, then we can make valid predictions about some “non-physical” phenomenon.

I don’t see why we need to call into question any scientifically verified physical laws of STEM. I just don’t know how we can make valid predictions about non-physical subjects that could hypothetically choose to influence the physical or not at any point.

Effectively you postulate some mischievous “someone” who gets his kicks from confusing us. Someone who creates “false clues” and grins at our efforts when we try to make sense of them.

That would perhaps describe demons?

Every experiment falsifies them.

I’m not surprised. I’ve looked at some, e.g. the STEP project. I think it is extremely useful to rule out “magical thinking” and every religious person should think carefully about these experiments. We need more of them. Prayers are not magic spells.

 

[Neithan]

It’s a critical distinction, especially since it defeats the proposition of people influencing spirits.

Perhaps not directly, but indirectly?

 

[jack63]

I don’t know if anybody else has mentioned this, but Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ’s book called the Phenomenon of Man is worth reading. He does directly discuss these type of things.

He argues that the laws of Physics are wrong or not well understood. Specifically he argues that the laws of thermal dynamics are wrong or we’re missing something here. He said that a divine event could be explained by rethinking the laws of thermal dynamics.

I’m not one to think in terms of “unnatural events”. Instead I think that we’ve only scratched the surface in terms of our understanding of the Universe with Science.

 

[Techno2000]

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin has been condemned by the Church.

 

[jack63]

This is not true.

Papal Praise for Teilhard - Ignatian Spirituality

Pope Benedict XVI has praised the cosmic vision of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit scientist and philosopher whose work has been out of favor with the Vatican in years past. Speaking about St. Paul’s vision that the world itself will one day become a form of living worship, the Pope said, “It’s the great vision that later Teilhard de Chardin also had:…

 

[Techno2000]

The Supreme Authority of the Holy Office, in a decree dated November 15, 1957, forbade the works of Chardin to be retained in Catholic libraries, including those of Religious Institutes. His books were not to be sold in Catholic bookshops and were not to be translated into other languages. Due to his own disobedient “precautions” however, in 1958 the works of Chardin were published in Spanish without previous ecclesiastical examination, and in direct defiance of the decrees of the Holy See. Within a relatively short time, his works had been translated into English and were being widely disseminated by his avid disciples, with horrendous consequences for the Church.

https://www.salvemariaregina.info/Reference/Chardin.ht

 

[jack63]

This is not a condemnation of Teilhard, and this decree is continuing to be reexamined.

Anyone can buy a book online.

Vatican Council Asks The Pope To Exonerate Jesuit Scientist's Writings

 

[Techno2000]

https://www.salvemariaregina.info/Reference/Chardin.html

 

[Gorgias]

Perhaps not directly, but indirectly?

Well… but then you’ve given up the game, haven’t you? I mean, can you empirically demonstrate “indirect influence”, in a scientific way?

 

[Techno2000]

This is not a condemnation of Teilhard, and this decree is continuing to be reexamined.

Anyone can buy a book online.

Vatican Council Asks The Pope To Exonerate Jesuit Scientist's Writings

“ We would say that, through some mysterious crack—no, it’s not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God."-Pope Paul VI

 

[jack63]

Ughh…if you don’t like Teilhard’s writing, don’t read them. If you have a problem with something he said, start a thread. Perhaps you have something interesting to say that I’ve not heard before, but these comments are not productive.

When Pope Benedict is praising some of his writings, how bad could it be?

I’ll not respond to you on this subject/thread anymore…

 

[Neithan]

Fr. de Chardin definitely fell out of favour with the Vatican but our two most recent popes have spoken of him more favourably. Pope Francis in fact cited him in Laudato Si.

 

[Economist]

Hmm… I’d disagree.

Haha! What else is new? Btw, nice to see you again. There are a couple of things that make a conversation with you or Neithan satisfying. Even though we disagree on fundamental points, but the exchange of ideas is respectful.

And, if we want to be honest about it, we don’t claim that the priest exorcises, per se, so much as Jesus does. The priest is praying to God that the possession ceases.

That does not help your argument. This would mean that the immovable and unchangeable God was “persuaded” by the prayers to expel that demon. The prayer does not have to have a direct or immediate effect, it is enough that it successfully resulted in the expulsion procedure - in an indirect fashion. Moreover, the alleged “discovery” of the demon was also a successful exposition of the non-physical entity, the “demon”. So there is allegedly a physical method to discover the existence of a non-physical entity. Unfortunately the method is not disclosed to us, so we cannot conduct some experiments to verify or falsify the claims.

It’s a critical distinction, especially since it defeats the proposition of people influencing spirits.

As I said, the “influencing” can be either direct or indirect. Do the prayers “influence” God? If yes, then God is not immutable. If no, then it is a meaningless endeavor. If the prayers influence the ones who utter the prayer, then the existence of target of prayer is unnecessary.

So… no. Not an attempt to “grab a spirt by the scruff of the neck (that they don’t possess)”…!

A little poetic embellishment. (Maybe the forked tail of the demon gets “grabbed”. Or is it some other forked appendix? Hard to know…) The whole point is that there is allegedly an interaction between the physical and the non-physical realm, and the interaction goes both ways. The physical entity influences the non-physical one (using prayers or evocations), and the non-physical entity takes “possession” of the physical body. And then the physical action results - directly or indirectly - in doing “something” to the non-physical.

In my previous post I made a short summary, but it was so long ago that I will repeat it here:

It is impossible to make valid predictions about anything, which does NOT refer to the observable physical reality. No one can make a prediction about hell, or heaven or the next result of the heavenly soccer game between the angels and the demons (if there is one…). But as long as the OUTCOME of the prediction refers to something that happens in the physical realm, then we can make predictions and can verify if the prediction was correct or not. This is so special about the physical realm, it can be observed, and it is subject to the “scientific method”.

 

[Economist]

Only if you are assuming that empirically verifiable hypotheses are the only things worth talking about.

I do not hold this view. The axiomatically defined, abstract sciences offer a lot of ground for discussions. The inductive method used in the objective, physical sciences are based upon the scientific method: “observe, hypothesize, experiment, and verify/falsify the hypothesis.” If there is an objectively existing, non-physical realm, then there are two possibilities: 1) it is totally distinct from the physical realm, or 2) there is an interaction between them.

If there is no interaction, then we have no information about this hypothesized non-physical realm, so any discussion would be a fruitless waste of time. If there is an interaction, then we can use the scientific method. The nature of the causative agent is irrelevant, only the actual physical action counts.

It’s not meaningless; but as you know there is an entire branch of philosophy (ethics) devoted to exploring it. It becomes extremely difficult to define when attributed to an eternal, non-physical absolute.

Yes, there are other fields, the ethics and the aesthetics, also part of philosophy, as you mentioned. They are totally different. Ethics does no deal with the “what exists” types of questions. It deals with “ought” types. Ethics is fundamentally based upon an ethical system. And there are many ethical systems out there. The same action will be evaluated as “ethical” or (moral) in some system, and “un-ethical” or immoral in another one. But since there is no epistemological method to decide which ethical system we “ought” to choose, the discussion “degenerates” into subjective opinions. The same applies to aesthetics.

Philosophy deals with the branch of “what exists” - metaphysics, epistemology - “how do we know it” and ethics - "how should we behave. But without metaphysics and epistemology the “ethics” hangs in thin air.