Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[PRmerger]

Some animals can live freely at 8,000 meters under water. If a human could do that it would be a miracle.
Some animals can go without water for years. If a human could do that it would be a miracle.
Some animals can withstand up to 1000 Grays of radiation. If a human could do that it would be a miracle.
Some animals can regenerate limbs. If a human could do that it would be a miracle.

And when it happened, atheists would sniff, “That’s not a miracle because it already happens in nature. Now, if you could show me an amputee who could live freely under water while also going without water for years, then I’d believe!”

Spontaneous remission of cancer is not miraculous

Of course it could be. It just doesn’t have to be.

I bring Zeitun up because it is relevant to two things. Firstly, your claim about Fatima earlier. With zero evidence apart from people reported as saying what they believed they saw versus what should be the most recorded event in Catholicism.

Ok.

Secondly, because it compares to this faulty radio episode. Where you say it should have, even must have been investigated.

Why are you operating under the misapprehension that it wasn’t investigated?

And why would you believe that Catholics should live under your Science Alone paradigm?

I’m confused…

 

[Bradski]

Why are you operating under the misapprehension that it wasn’t investigated?

I’m not. It was. And accepted. So, unlike Fatima, where we have a simple written report of what people said they saw, for a few minutes, of a one off event nearly a century ago, in this case we have something occurring time and time again for hours at a time, over a period of three years and witnessed by what is described as millions of people.

Forget poking around in the guts of a dusty radio for proof of the supernatural. Show me some of the countless pictures taken of this event.

Surely skepticism cannot be entertained. If a radio playing a love song should be rigorously investigated, then show me the evidence that an appearance of the very mother of Christ was rigorously investigated.

If this event were true, I cannot for the life of me understand why every Catholic alive would not make every effort possible to attend. You have said that if the church declares it be be true, then true it is. The Coptic church declared it true. Is this good enough for you?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not. It was. And accepted. So, unlike Fatima, where we have a simple written report of what people said they saw, for a few minutes, of a one off event nearly a century ago, in this case we have something occurring time and time again for hours at a time, over a period of three years and witnessed by what is described as millions of people.

Ok.

Forget poking around in the guts of a dusty radio for proof of the supernatural. Show me some of the countless pictures taken of this event.

Uh…ok.

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=zeitoun%20miracle%20pictures

Surely skepticism cannot be entertained.

Not sure what you mean here? Catholics cannot be skeptics? Is that what you mean?

If a radio playing a love song should be rigorously investigated, then show me the evidence that an appearance of the very mother of Christ was rigorously investigated.

Again, Science Alone is not our monkey. Not our circus.

That’s YOUR monkey.

But as far as evidence that this Marian apparition was investigated, you can look here to the process of how apparitions are investigated by the CC.

unamsanctamcatholicam.com/spirituality/82-spirtuality/329-evaluating-private-apparitions.html

My understanding is that the CC left this to the Coptic Church, but…whatever.

It was investigated.

If this event were true, I cannot for the life of me understand why every Catholic alive would not make every effort possible to attend.

Because we already have Christ in our churches. We already are one with Him in the most intimate way possible. So there’s no need to fly thousands of miles away to see Mary appearing on top of a church saying nothing new.

You have said that if the church declares it be be true, then true it is.

Yep.

The Coptic church declared it true. Is this good enough for you?

If it were only the Coptic church, then no. But if the CC has declared it to be authentic, then I trust her.

I haven’t found anything definitive though on the Church’s approval of this. Have you?

 

[PRmerger]

Now, I actually gave you the proper method to perform the experiments which would make the world sit up and take notice of your miracle

I think you are operating under the misapprehension that I have some sort of obligation to “make the world sit up and take notice” of my miracle.

Let me assure you: I have no obligation whatsoever to do this.

What I do have the obligation to do is “make the world sit up and take notice” of this:



And that, PA, is something I have dedicated my life to doing.

 

[PRmerger]

So here’s the thing, Bradski…don’t you find it extremely odd that Shermer has no interest in investigating this very, very curious event that is oh-so-personal and emotionally charged?

I’m sure he’ll be able to answer you directly: mshermer@skeptic.com

How did my requirement for proof of the supernatural sound?

But do you find it extremely odd that Shermer is so uninterested in pursuing the why and the how of this very, very jarring incident?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If this event were true, I cannot for the life of me understand why every Catholic alive would not make every effort possible to attend. You have said that if the church declares it be be true, then true it is. The Coptic church declared it true. Is this good enough for you?

Some people do not believe we’ve been to the moon. We have; and, I have no interest in going to that barren rock. Actually, even if I survived blast-off, the bathroom-in-space logistics make watching from my couch, the hands down winner.

God is everywhere. Just as one doesn’t have to go to Tibet to find oneself, it’s all good wherever I am.

There is an old thread on CAF from 2004 about an apparition in Mormora, Ontario Canada. It may be worthwhile for you to see how such matters are discussed among Catholics.

I see no reason why miracles cannot occur even in places associated with dubious personal revelations simply because you have people coming together in faith, love and the hope of God’s intervention.

I can’t impress upon you the importance that it is always, and I repeat always, about God’s will be done, not mine or yours.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I think you are operating under the misapprehension that I have some sort of obligation to “make the world sit up and take notice” of my miracle.

There is no “obligation”. But I thought you would embrace it in the light of what you wrote here:

What I do have the obligation to do is “make the world sit up and take notice” of this:
And that, PA, is something I have dedicated my life to doing.

Dedicated, eh? Then I don’t understand why would you reject the best tool to achieve that goal. But then again, people are different. Some want to use the proper tools to succeed, others prefer to struggle and fail. Because, take notice, the world does not pay attention to your efforts. It would take notice to the miracle I suggested. Of course it is your life that you waste.

 

[SonOfMan]

How about: we can’t find a natural caue for this event, therefore we ought to consider a supernatural cause for this event.

Does that sound reasonable?

Instead, what you have asserted is the circular (and very close-minded AND unscientific): I won’t consider the supernatural because I don’t believe in the supernatural.

People used to worship the sun as a god out of ignorance. They used to think he visited them each day to bestow his blessing on them and their crops, sustaining them.

Then humans learned about the solar system and how it works. Poof no more sun god. Turns out there was never a sun god, people just didnt know what the sun was.

As knowledge increases, the supernatural events seem to occur less and less. Coincidence?

 

[PRmerger]

People used to worship the sun as a god out of ignorance. They used to think he visited them each day to bestow his blessing on them and their crops, sustaining them.

Then humans learned about the solar system and how it works. Poof no more sun god. Turns out there was never a sun god, people just didnt know what the sun was.

As knowledge increases, the supernatural events seem to occur less and less. Coincidence?

This sounds like Science of the Gaps.

 

[PRmerger]

If someone presents an incorrect argument, I will be happy to expose it as such. I am not willing to embrace idiotic atheists as bosom-buddies.

Excellent. We are on the same side here then.

Come back when you investigated the claims of astrologers… and the claims of those who insist that they created a perpetual motion machine.

Imagine if Fleming had simply dismissed the possibility of food having antibacterial properties…

You are very naïve. How many times should “science” investigate the claims of “kooks”?

Wow.

Do you know how many scientific theories by “kooks” have been proven to be correct and are now embraced by the naysayers?

“When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.” - Jonathan Swift

 

[PRmerger]

There is no “obligation”. But I thought you would embrace it in the light of what you wrote here:

Nope. I embrace none of the Marian apparitions. I simply accept them as approved or hoax based on the authority of the Church.

Dedicated, eh?

Yes. Dedicated. Perhaps you should study a bit what it means to be a baptized Christian.

Then I don’t understand why would you reject the best tool to achieve that goal.

Because I don’t think it is the best tool.

 

[icamhif]

You know, Tony, you should REALLY learn what an “ad hominem fallacy” is. If a poster would say about another that she is a drooling idiot, that is NOT an ad hominem. It may be rude, but not an “ad hominem”.

Still, I would be hard-pressed to take seriously anyone who calls me names.

 

[icamhif]

Did you ever think about the reason that such claims are not taken seriously? Investigation of these claims would cost time and money - a LOT. And research grants must be fought for. The people who are willing to invest money want to see a return for their investment, and there is nothing wrong with that. So the scientists investigate problems which might have positive results, not the claims about the curative powers of pyramidal contraptions.

I guess, then, that economics hinders science’s ideal goal: being truly objective about every claim. Economics is reality, though, so I’m not complaining.

 

[Aloysium]

People used to worship the sun as a god out of ignorance. They used to think he visited them each day to bestow his blessing on them and their crops, sustaining them.

Then humans learned about the solar system and how it works. Poof no more sun god. Turns out there was never a sun god, people just didnt know what the sun was.

As knowledge increases, the supernatural events seem to occur less and less. Coincidence?

You think too little and too highly of human beings.
Science has demonstrated that the average person was a lot smarter one hundred years ago than we are today. And, they may have been even smarter before.
Definitely someone who gives thanks to the sun and the rain and the winds is far more in tune with the world and their needs as human beings, that the current crop that you appear to be admiring. You have no idea what the sun is in itself, only what it does, and probably at solely an abstract level. While the operating manual for matter that we call science is a form of practical knowledge, as an analogy of reality, it very early breaks down. It can lead a lot of people away from what is real. I would say that the more one lives in the world of the abstract, the less they will be connected to others and the good.

 

[Aloysium]

I guess, then, that economics hinders science’s ideal goal: being truly objective about every claim. Economics is reality, though, so I’m not complaining.

Science is a human activity. In “real life” it is about honour, economics and power. While it provides a method for learning about our world, observe a flower, the stars at night, feel the wind and the fragrances of the bush, the glories of creation are always before us. As an instrument of knowledge it fails at providing answers to the questions that are closest to our heart. Some scientist try to impose their field onto areas that are beyond its scope, sounding more ridiculous than any “God of the gaps” affirmation.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This sounds like Science of the Gaps.

I’ve asked a form of this question to you before when we were discussing whether demons exist or not:

What gap in our knowledge has ever been filled by the supernatural?

We can point to many instances where things that were once thought to be supernatural in nature have later turned out to have logical, natural explanations. Do we have any examples of things thought to be natural that have later turned out to have supernatural explanations?

I agree with you to the point that we can’t just dismiss something from the get-go because it seems implausible. The problem is that I think it’s reasonable to say that if testing fails repeatedly then the chances of it being true are almost nil. It’s not a bad thing to default to the idea that something is not supernatural (while not stating outright that it’s impossible) due to how time and time (and time and time) we’ve seen supernatural explanations fall to natural ones.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Do we have any examples of things thought to be natural that have later turned out to have supernatural explanations? . . .

There is no explanation for what is supernatural to be found in the natural, which is but a reflection of Divine Truth.
If you are speaking about what is actually outside of the “natural” world, like beauty, meaning, purpose, truth, goodness and so on, previous materialistic views included the belief in the influence of ancestors, gods and idols, animal spirits, the senses and other parts of creation.
Clearly, to anyone who seeks, there is one God from whom all things come into being and to whom we Journey.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve asked a form of this question to you before when we were discussing whether demons exist or not:

What gap in our knowledge has ever been filled by the supernatural?

Well, one example would be our knowledge of the Trinity.

We can point to many instances where things that were once thought to be supernatural in nature have later turned out to have logical, natural explanations. Do we have any examples of things thought to be natural that have later turned out to have supernatural explanations?

Ummm…how about the Resurrection?

All of Jesus’ disciples first thought of natural explanations, one of them most notably earning an adjective evermore associated with his name, Thomas.

I agree with you to the point that we can’t just dismiss something from the get-go because it seems implausible.

Yes!!! Thank you for acknowledging this.

I find the mindset of “He is absolutely CERTAIN that it wasn’t a supernatural event. That’s for the very good reason that he doesn’t BELIEVE in supernatural events” to be an egregious breach of the entire point of science: finding answers to what’s happening in the world around us.

The problem is that I think it’s reasonable to say that if testing fails repeatedly then the chances of it being true are almost nil.

Probably.

And that’s a very good argument for all of the scientific discoveries that were discovered against the odds…as being guided by the Creator.

It’s not a bad thing to default to the idea that something is not supernatural (while not stating outright that it’s impossible) due to how time and time (and time and time) we’ve seen supernatural explanations fall to natural ones.

No. There should be no default in science, save for: I will look for the answer wherever it leads.

“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.” -Paul Johnson

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Well, one example would be our knowledge of the Trinity.

Ummm…how about the Resurrection?

All of Jesus’ disciples first thought of natural explanations, one of them most notably earning an adjective evermore associated with his name, Thomas.

By this reasoning we know that Muhammad was able to get from Mecca to the farthest mosque in Jeruselam in one night because he rode a buraq (a winged horse-like creature with a human face).

Yes!!! Thank you for acknowledging this.

I find the mindset of “He is absolutely CERTAIN that it wasn’t a supernatural event. That’s for the very good reason that he doesn’t BELIEVE in supernatural events” to be an egregious breach of the entire point of science: finding answers to what’s happening in the world around us.

We agree that we know nothing with certainty, especially scientifically. If someone is in an elevator and it jerks a little before going to the next floor we can’t say for certain that it wasn’t hobgoblins or gremlins that did that, but when we have a possible answer that:

• has happened to many others in the past
• aligns itself with known science (in this example the mechanics of an operating elevator)
• doesn’t require calling upon the existence of that which has never ever been shown to exist

then you can’t fault me if I announce with certainty (in its common usage) that I wasn’t the possible victim of a hobgolin attack. There will be egg on my face the day hobgoblins are shown to exist, but until then I’m confident.

Probably.

And that’s a very good argument for all of the scientific discoveries that were discovered against the odds…as being guided by the Creator.

Yeah, not so much. Show me something that was determined true despite its long odds that could not have come to pass in a creatorless or deistic world. Something that may have been thought against the odds by proto-scientists of the first centuries C.E. would likely nowadays make perfect rational sense to a modern middle school science student.

No. There should be no default in science, save for: I will look for the answer wherever it leads.

And if it leads to the unlikelihood of there being a supernatural cause for another, the next step for some believers will to accept it, and for other believers to retreat to the “God can’t be tested” or “you’d understand if you believed” fallback position.

 

[PRmerger]

By this reasoning we know that Muhammad was able to get from Mecca to the farthest mosque in Jeruselam in one night because he rode a buraq (a winged horse-like creature with a human face).

If you are an atheist, then you need to offer some evidence that you’ve investigated this and found it to be false.

What evidence do you have for rejecting this?

We agree that we know nothing with certainty, especially scientifically. If someone is in an elevator and it jerks a little before going to the next floor we can’t say for certain that it wasn’t hobgoblins or gremlins that did that, but when we have a possible answer that:

• has happened to many others in the past
• aligns itself with known science (in this example the mechanics of an operating elevator)
• doesn’t require calling upon the existence of that which has never ever been shown to exist

Indeed.

then you can’t fault me if I announce with certainty (in its common usage) that I wasn’t the possible victim of a hobgolin attack. There will be egg on my face the day hobgoblins are shown to exist, but until then I’m confident.

Correct.

Yeah, not so much. Show me something that was determined true despite its long odds that could not have come to pass in a creatorless or deistic world.

Why should I do that?

There have been many a scientific discovery that was made against the odds.

Is your answer to how these were encountered: they found these wonderful discoveries by sheer serendipity?

Something that may have been thought against the odds by proto-scientists of the first centuries C.E. would likely nowadays make perfect rational sense to a modern middle school science student

And some ridiculous ideas that first century peasants understood to be just ga-ga, la-la nonsense can be embraced by some of the most erudite professors.

So not sure what your point is?

And if it leads to the unlikelihood of there being a supernatural cause for another, the next step for some believers will to accept it, and for other believers to retreat to the “God can’t be tested” or “you’d understand if you believed” fallback position.

Ok.