Supernatural epistemology?

[Big_Dummy]

I tend to listen to the guy who could walk on water, turn water into wine and raise from the dead. others sink into the water, have to buy their wine at the party store, and rmain in the grave.

 

[hecd2]

I’ve been observing this thread and it seems to me that believers in the supernatural are misunderstanding the question, answering different questions, and challenging the validity of the OP’s own epistemology, none of which actually answer the question.

Which is: how can you have high confidence that a proposition about the supernatural is true?

It is not: Does the supernatural exist?
It is not: Does God exist?
It is not: Show how you use the epistemology of science to test the supernatural world.

An example that is very important to Catholic theology is as follows. The proposition is: “Human beings have souls which are their animating principles, but which lie beyond the natural domain, and so survive material death”. How do you know with high confidence that that is a true proposition? If you say because the Church tells me so, or Tradition tells me so, or because it’s a beautiful idea, or it’s self-evident to me, or scholastic metaphysics, that’s fine - the OP, and now me, are just trying to understand what reliable epistemology exists for supernatural propositions and whether there is any objective universally verifiable one (by universally verifiable, I mean verifiable in principle by anyone). Thomistic metaphysics might qualify, provided that its axioms, which are abstracted from observing the natural world, are indeed true.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Shike]

I’ve been observing this thread and it seems to me that believers in the supernatural are misunderstanding the question, answering different questions, and challenging the validity of the OP’s own epistemology, none of which actually answer the question.

Which is: how can you have high confidence that a proposition about the supernatural is true?

It is not: Does the supernatural exist?
It is not: Does God exist?
It is not: Show how you use the epistemology of science to test the supernatural world.

An example that is very important to Catholic theology is as follows. The proposition is: “Human beings have souls which are their animating principles, but which lie beyond the natural domain, and so survive material death”. How do you know with high confidence that that is a true proposition? If you say because the Church tells me so, or Tradition tells me so, or because it’s a beautiful idea, or it’s self-evident to me, or scholastic metaphysics, that’s fine - the OP, and now me, are just trying to understand what reliable epistemology exists for supernatural propositions and whether there is any objective universally verifiable one (by universally verifiable, I mean verifiable in principle by anyone). Thomistic metaphysics might qualify, provided that its axioms, which are abstracted from observing the natural world, are indeed true.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thank you for your post as it presents things very clearly. My answer has been: one way is philosophy (which includes a thomistic metaphysic insofar as it is true). But Spock won’t accept my answer because of his own epistemology: therefore, for my part at least, the discussion has moved to Spock’s epistemology.

 

[levinas12]

I never said or implied the last part. If you find a piece of art pretty or moving then it will have a certain “value” to you. But again, that is a subjective evaluation. As the old saying goes: “Wagner’s music is actually much better than it sounds”. It is all in the mind. Some people create pieces of “art”, by affixing non-connected urinals to a wall. In my eyes it is junk. In someone else’s mind it may be a wonderful piece of art. Who is right? Both of us? Neither one of us? Does the question “is that exhibition artistic?” make even any sense? I don’t think so. Art is a means to induce certain brain processes - especially music. Our brains are very different, and the same music may affect one person and not affect another one. Art needs no “epistemology”.

I can see this is a blind alley for you … alas …

[/quote]

, then the only way to ascertain its veracity is the empirical way. To be precise: 1) make observations, 2) set up a tentative hypothesis, 3) try to make a prediction based upon your hypothesis, 4) conduct experiments, 5) compare the actual results with the prediction. If the prediction was accurate then the hypothesis gains credibility. If the result differes from the prediction, then the hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded. To state it simply: we use the scientific method. Before anyone jumps in, the method is not part of the physical reality, it is about the abstraction of physical reality - so it does not have to be validated empirically. It is validated a-posteriori, by the virtue that it works. No one could so far postulate a better method. Maybe there is a better one, but so far no one could find it. Fortunately for us (freethinkers-empiricists-materialists) we are not “married” to any system. If a better one comes around, we are glad to change.

Carnap is nodding his approval.

When it comes to formal, axiomatic systems, the empirical method cannot be used. Instead we set up some axioms, and some rules of transitions (grammar). Then we postulate propositions and try to find out if the proposition is a logical corollary of the axioms. If they are, we have a “true” proposition. Mind you, that proposition is only “true” within that particular axiomatic system. Some propositions cannot be decided within that axiomatic system.

Again, Carnap is nodding his approval.

When the proposition is about the “past”, neither method can be used. We must resort to testimonial evidence. This type of evidence is the weakest of all, and must be used only when everything else fails. There is no failsafe method to separate the true propositions from the false ones. We must weigh the testimonies of people, what we know about the people, etc… and reach an estimate about the probability of the testimonials.

There’s more to the past than testimonials. For example, how would you explain the economic crash of 2008. Just through testimonials?

Now, to be clear about something. I am most emphatically NOT going to go into an argument about the epistemology I presented. Every time I tried to posit the question above, someone jumped and derailed the thread into irrelevance. So, don’t even try, please. Stick to the topic, if you want to. If you wish to talk about the materialist / empiricist epistemology, start a new thread.

Maybe I will … you sound a tad miffed … but this thread is as much about “evidence” as it is about “supernatural”… and you seem to have unreasonably restricted evidence either to the methodology of the hard sciences or to formal axiomatic systems …

But what about evidence in other areas … e.g., literary criticism, legal theory, aesthetics, ethics, and, yes, even historiography (to which you gave short shrift) …

I’m curious … have you read any major 20th century theologians …
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[levinas12]

I never said or implied the last part. If you find a piece of art pretty or moving then it will have a certain “value” to you. But again, that is a subjective evaluation. As the old saying goes: “Wagner’s music is actually much better than it sounds”. It is all in the mind. Some people create pieces of “art”, by affixing non-connected urinals to a wall. In my eyes it is junk. In someone else’s mind it may be a wonderful piece of art. Who is right? Both of us? Neither one of us? Does the question “is that exhibition artistic?” make even any sense? I don’t think so. Art is a means to induce certain brain processes - especially music. Our brains are very different, and the same music may affect one person and not affect another one. Art needs no “epistemology”.

Emphasis mine and it is the pertinent part of your question. The old - now defunct - logical positivism stated that there is only one way to obtain knowledge: the empirical way. That concept would be self-refuting, since its veracity cannot be established empirically. I don’t even know if there are logical positivists today.

What I say is different. First, we make zillions of observations about the physical reality - which have been conducted during the ages. Then we distill what we observed and set up a few (as few as possible) basic principles, which are considered self-evident and do not need to be verified. However, we stay alert on our toes, and if these basic principles turn out to be incorrect, then we must be ready to discard and / or modify them.

Now, when the proposition is about the physical reality, then the only way to ascertain its veracity is the empirical way. To be precise: 1) make observations, 2) set up a tentative hypothesis, 3) try to make a prediction based upon your hypothesis, 4) conduct experiments, 5) compare the actual results with the prediction. If the prediction was accurate then the hypothesis gains credibility. If the result differes from the prediction, then the hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded. To state it simply: we use the scientific method. Before anyone jumps in, the method is not part of the physical reality, it is about the abstraction of physical reality - so it does not have to be validated empirically. It is validated a-posteriori, by the virtue that it works. No one could so far postulate a better method. Maybe there is a better one, but so far no one could find it. Fortunately for us (freethinkers-empiricists-materialists) we are not “married” to any system. If a better one comes around, we are glad to change.

When it comes to formal, axiomatic systems, the empirical method cannot be used. Instead we set up some axioms, and some rules of transitions (grammar). Then we postulate propositions and try to find out if the proposition is a logical corollary of the axioms. If they are, we have a “true” proposition. Mind you, that proposition is only “true” within that particular axiomatic system. Some propositions cannot be decided within that axiomatic system.

When the proposition is about the “past”, neither method can be used. We must resort to testimonial evidence. This type of evidence is the weakest of all, and must be used only when everything else fails. There is no failsafe method to separate the true propositions from the false ones. We must weigh the testimonies of people, what we know about the people, etc… and reach an estimate about the probability of the testimonials. Fortunately, this method does not have to be used in this case, since the “supernatural” is supposed to exist today.

Now, to be clear about something. I am most emphatically NOT going to go into an argument about the epistemology I presented. Every time I tried to posit the question above, someone jumped and derailed the thread into irrelevance. So, don’t even try, please. Stick to the topic, if you want to. If you wish to talk about the materialist / empiricist epistemology, start a new thread.

 

[levinas12]

I never said or implied the last part. If you find a piece of art pretty or moving then it will have a certain “value” to you. But again, that is a subjective evaluation. As the old saying goes: “Wagner’s music is actually much better than it sounds”. It is all in the mind. Some people create pieces of “art”, by affixing non-connected urinals to a wall. In my eyes it is junk. In someone else’s mind it may be a wonderful piece of art. Who is right? Both of us? Neither one of us? Does the question “is that exhibition artistic?” make even any sense? I don’t think so. Art is a means to induce certain brain processes - especially music. Our brains are very different, and the same music may affect one person and not affect another one. Art needs no “epistemology”.

Emphasis mine and it is the pertinent part of your question. The old - now defunct - logical positivism stated that there is only one way to obtain knowledge: the empirical way. That concept would be self-refuting, since its veracity cannot be established empirically. I don’t even know if there are logical positivists today.

What I say is different. First, we make zillions of observations about the physical reality - which have been conducted during the ages. Then we distill what we observed and set up a few (as few as possible) basic principles, which are considered self-evident and do not need to be verified. However, we stay alert on our toes, and if these basic principles turn out to be incorrect, then we must be ready to discard and / or modify them.

Now, when the proposition is about the physical reality, then the only way to ascertain its veracity is the empirical way. To be precise: 1) make observations, 2) set up a tentative hypothesis, 3) try to make a prediction based upon your hypothesis, 4) conduct experiments, 5) compare the actual results with the prediction. If the prediction was accurate then the hypothesis gains credibility. If the result differes from the prediction, then the hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded. To state it simply: we use the scientific method. Before anyone jumps in, the method is not part of the physical reality, it is about the abstraction of physical reality - so it does not have to be validated empirically. It is validated a-posteriori, by the virtue that it works. No one could so far postulate a better method. Maybe there is a better one, but so far no one could find it. Fortunately for us (freethinkers-empiricists-materialists) we are not “married” to any system. If a better one comes around, we are glad to change.

When it comes to formal, axiomatic systems, the empirical method cannot be used. Instead we set up some axioms, and some rules of transitions (grammar). Then we postulate propositions and try to find out if the proposition is a logical corollary of the axioms. If they are, we have a “true” proposition. Mind you, that proposition is only “true” within that particular axiomatic system. Some propositions cannot be decided within that axiomatic system.

When the proposition is about the “past”, neither method can be used. We must resort to testimonial evidence. This type of evidence is the weakest of all, and must be used only when everything else fails. There is no failsafe method to separate the true propositions from the false ones. We must weigh the testimonies of people, what we know about the people, etc… and reach an estimate about the probability of the testimonials. Fortunately, this method does not have to be used in this case, since the “supernatural” is supposed to exist today.

My question is about the purported “supernatural realm”. Is there an epistemology which will allow the non-believer to find if a proposition about the supernatural is true or false? This question is restricted to the existence of “some god”. It goes for all the claims concerning the supernatural, souls, angels, demons, ghosts, whetever…

Now, to be clear about something. I am most emphatically NOT going to go into an argument about the epistemology I presented. Every time I tried to posit the question above, someone jumped and derailed the thread into irrelevance. So, don’t even try, please. Stick to the topic, if you want to. If you wish to talk about the materialist / empiricist epistemology, start a new thread.

 

[levinas12]

Now, to be clear about something. I am most emphatically NOT going to go into an argument about the epistemology I presented. Every time I tried to posit the question above, someone jumped and derailed the thread into irrelevance. So, don’t even try, please. Stick to the topic, if you want to. If you wish to talk about the materialist / empiricist epistemology, start a new thread.

But your “materialist/empiricist epistemology” is at issue in this thread. You seem to have an unreasonably restrictive notion of evidence - either the methodology of the hard sciences or formal axiomatics or some unclarified protocol based on “zillions” of observations (?).

And you dismiss “evidence” claims in other areas, e.g., literary criticism, art criticism. I’m not sure what you would say about legal argumentation, ethics or public policy.

But surely, in a thread devoted to “supernatural” epistemology, which asks for a way to determine whether belief in God is reasonable, one would think that we need to start with a “phenomenology” of various types of evidence.

And that’s why I mentioned Wittgenstein’s language games. I thought this would appeal to you given your background in science and logic.

I’m curious … have you read any major 20th century theologians … Barth, Tillich, Rahner, Balthasar, Ratzinger … yes, even Hans Kung (who wrote a delightful book, Does God Exist)

And, please, don’t be miffed … maybe I will start a new thread … but I doubt whether it will be as popular as your threads.

 

[levinas12]

Emphasis mine and it is the pertinent part of your question. The old - now defunct - logical positivism stated that there is only one way to obtain knowledge: the empirical way … I don’t even know if there are logical positivists today.

Now, when the proposition is about the physical reality, then the only way to ascertain its veracity is the empirical way. To be precise: 1) make observations, 2) set up a tentative hypothesis, 3) try to make a prediction based upon your hypothesis, 4) conduct experiments, 5) compare the actual results with the prediction. If the prediction was accurate then the hypothesis gains credibility. If the result differes from the prediction, then the hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded. To state it simply: we use the scientific method. Before anyone jumps in, the method is not part of the physical reality, it is about the abstraction of physical reality - so it does not have to be validated empirically. It is validated a-posteriori, by the virtue that it works. No one could so far postulate a better method. Maybe there is a better one, but so far no one could find it. Fortunately for us (freethinkers-empiricists-materialists) we are not “married” to any system. If a better one comes around, we are glad to change.

When it comes to formal, axiomatic systems, the empirical method cannot be used. Instead we set up some axioms, and some rules of transitions (grammar). Then we postulate propositions and try to find out if the proposition is a logical corollary of the axioms. If they are, we have a “true” proposition. Mind you, that proposition is only “true” within that particular axiomatic system. Some propositions cannot be decided within that axiomatic system.

In spite of your disclaimer, you are very close to the spirit of logical positivism. You put great faith in the “empirical way” (as you describe it) which Carnap would applaud. And you’re invested in formal axiomatics which, again, Carnap would applaud (I know, you did mention undecidability).

You mention a third “epistemology” based on “zillions” of observations. I suppose this may distinguish you from the logical positivists - if only because it is a bit fuzzy. I don’t think Carnap would applaud this.

However, your dismissal of truth claims in the arts and humanities (I know, you made a slight concession to historiography) is entirely consistent with the worldview of logical positivists.

By the way, “doing history” involves much more than just recording “testimonials”. There’s interpretation (hermeneutics). Of course, that opens up another can of worms!

 

[Spock]

I’ve been observing this thread and it seems to me that believers in the supernatural are misunderstanding the question, answering different questions, and challenging the validity of the OP’s own epistemology, none of which actually answer the question.

Which is: how can you have high confidence that a proposition about the supernatural is true?

It is not: Does the supernatural exist?
It is not: Does God exist?
It is not: Show how you use the epistemology of science to test the supernatural world.

An example that is very important to Catholic theology is as follows. The proposition is: “Human beings have souls which are their animating principles, but which lie beyond the natural domain, and so survive material death”. How do you know with high confidence that that is a true proposition? If you say because the Church tells me so, or Tradition tells me so, or because it’s a beautiful idea, or it’s self-evident to me, or scholastic metaphysics, that’s fine - the OP, and now me, are just trying to understand what reliable epistemology exists for supernatural propositions and whether there is any objective universally verifiable one (by universally verifiable, I mean verifiable in principle by anyone). Thomistic metaphysics might qualify, provided that its axioms, which are abstracted from observing the natural world, are indeed true.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Maybe there is ESP after all (Just kidding) The question of soul was the exact problem I was about to bring up. Yes as usual, the answers all try to change the venue of the conversation.

 

[Oreoracle]

The chain of causes can’t go back to infinity.

Why?

 

[Spock]

But your “materialist/empiricist epistemology” is at issue in this thread. You seem to have an unreasonably restrictive notion of evidence - either the methodology of the hard sciences or formal axiomatics or some unclarified protocol based on “zillions” of observations (?).

Since I started the thread I decided what the scope of the thread would be. When you start one, it will be your decision, and I will do my very best to stay within that scope.

And you dismiss “evidence” claims in other areas, e.g., literary criticism, art criticism. I’m not sure what you would say about legal argumentation, ethics or public policy.

Why would I care about them? Do they deal with the topic? No. Literary and art criticsms are fully subjective. One critic likes the performance, the other one does not. Someone likes Wagner, the other one hates his music. Someone likes Guernica, others cannot stand it. And, guess what, who cares? And what does it matter?

Legal argumentation should be all about the facts, verifyable facts. When there are no facts, only unreliable testimonials (and if they are not first hand, they are justly dismissed as HEARSAY evidence), then there is a serious problem, which - again - has NOTHING to do the problem at hand. It would be fine to explore them in a different thread.

But surely, in a thread devoted to “supernatural” epistemology, which asks for a way to determine whether belief in God is reasonable, one would think that we need to start with a “phenomenology” of various types of evidence.

And that is exactly what I did.

And that’s why I mentioned Wittgenstein’s language games. I thought this would appeal to you given your background in science and logic.

I have never heard of them by that name, but now that you mentioned it, I went and read the short summary on Wiki. Of course I agree with the concept and the method. This is how two people - speaking different languages - establish a mutually acceptable meaning to words. I came to the same conclusion a long time ago. To summarize: “words” are supposed to express concepts (which are represented as brain-states). The “meaning” of a word gets established in a communication channel, when the two communicators “A” and “B” will agree (and that is the operating word!) upon the meaing. I am still not sure what is the significance of this.

I’m curious … have you read any major 20th century theologians … Barth, Tillich, Rahner, Balthasar, Ratzinger … yes, even Hans Kung (who wrote a delightful book, Does God Exist)

Nope. I read quite a few apologetic books, and they were all junk. I am not going to mention the authors, since that might be a violation of the rules, but rest assured, they are usually mentioned around here - along with praises. The reason I am not interested in just reading those books is simple: I cannot reply to them, no matter what ridiculous claims they make. I make one exception, I read and liked the book of Rabbi Kuschner, titled “When bad things happen to good people”. He presented the “problem of evil” and gave a perfectly satisfactory answer to it - quite unlike those attempts which try to “explain away” the problem (and no, I am not going into the details).

And, please, don’t be miffed … maybe I will start a new thread … but I doubt whether it will be as popular as your threads.

Please go ahead.

 

[Spock]

Here is a very basic summary of his 1st way. You will notice that it is logically valid, thus debunking some of your frivolous charges. What someone will take issue with is the premises 1-3. Go ahead, critique it: but warning, if you are not familiar with aristotelianism and the principles of potentiality and actuality you are most likely wasting your time.

I am familiar with the proposed “potentiality and actuality” but I don’t accept them as valid categories.

Argument from change

1. Some things change.
2. Everything that changes is made to change by something else.
3. The chain of causes can’t go back to infinity.
4. Therefore, there must be a cause of change that does not itself change.

Oreoracle already asked the pertinent question. I am also questioning 2). Back in those times people were extremely ignorant about reality. They assumed certain characteistics of “matter”, like matter is inert, it needs an external “pusher” to make it move or change. Today we know better. Change, motion are all internal characteristics of STEM, they need to external justification. No physicist assumes that an “immaterial uranium-splitter” is necessary to explain why uranium atoms undergo spontaneous fission. Of course philosophers are usually very ignorant about reality, and they keep hanging to ancient ideas - like “potentiality and actuality”.

The presentation is indeed a logically valid argument, but its soundness is not established. To wit:

1. All elephants play the violin.
2. Jumbo is an elephant.
3. Therefore Jumbo can play the violin.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Spock,
Supernatural knowledge comes in degrees. One goes from kindergarten to elementary and high school and finally to undergrad and graduate stuff. At the top of the progression is knowledge of God, but you can’t just jump there from the elementary school level. Consider the following hierarchy:

physical nature (matter/energy)
|
phenomenological signals (matter/energy)
|
nervous system (matter/energy)
|
brain (matter/energy)
|
mind (?)
|
thought (?)

I put a question mark next to the last two because it is here that materialists and spiritualists usually part company. Thought systems like chemistry, physics and mathematics are, insofar as they are abstract, incorporeal. Incorporeal things require an incorporeal environment in which to subsist (i.e. a mind). This incorporeality is particularly evident in the case of mathematics as mathematical theorems can be developed independent of any phenomenological framework. If you know math then you know something incorporeal, and if incorporeal truth is what you are driving at when you say “supernatural epistemology” then algebra, combinatorics, and calculus fit the bill nicely. The mistake materialists make is failing to notice that the “hard” sciences are in fact supernatural since they look down upon nature from an incorporeal vantage point. Materialists collapse mind into brain, thought into neurons, and theological claims into hogwash by applying scientific arguments that are themselves supernatural. In this way they saw off the branch upon which they sit.

 

[Spock]

But Spock won’t accept my answer because of his own epistemology: therefore, for my part at least, the discussion has moved to Spock’s epistemology.

You did not give me any specific answer that I could recognize as such and which I could apply. To say that “philsophy” is the answer is much too vague. You could show the method by applying to a specific problem, like “humans have an immortal soul, while animals and plants do not”. As always, the devil is in the details.

 

[Spock]

Supernatural knowledge comes in degrees. One goes from kindergarten to elementary and high school and finally to undergrad and graduate stuff. At the top of the progression is knowledge of God, but you can’t just jump there from the elementary school level. Consider the following hierarchy:

physical nature (matter/energy)
|
phenomenological signals (matter/energy)
|
nervous system (matter/energy)
|
brain (matter/energy)
|
mind (?)
|
thought (?)

Ok. I did. Now you do the same:

physical nature (matter/energy)
|
phenomenological signals (matter/energy)
|
muscular system (matter/energy)
|
legs (matter/energy)
|
walking (?)

Is there any reason to say that the ACTIVITY of the muscles in the legs, which is clearly not a material object is some kind of “supernatural”? The activity of the brain (mind) is also not a physical object, but that does not make it “stupidnatural”.

I put a question mark next to the last two because it is here that materialists and spiritualists usually part company. Thought systems like chemistry, physics and mathematics are, insofar as they are abstract, incorporeal. Incorporeal things require an incorporeal environment in which to subsist (i.e. a mind). This incorporeality is particularly evident in the case of mathematics as mathematical theorems can be developed independent of any phenomenological framework. If you know math then you know something incorporeal, and if incorporeal truth is what you are driving at when you say “supernatural epistemology” then algebra, combinatorics, and calculus fit the bill nicely.

I wish you would be joking. It would not be a funny joke, but to offer this with straight face is very sad indeed.

Materialists collapse mind into brain, thought into neurons, and theological claims into hogwash by applying scientific arguments that are themselves supernatural. In this way they saw off the branch upon which they sit.

Why don’t you go ahead and say: “Materialists collapse walking into the muscles of the legs”. At least you would be consistent in you worldview.

Thinking, ideas, concepts are not supernatural, unless you wish to play some not-funny word-games. Supernatural is ghosts, magic, angels, souls, demons, gods… and so on.

 

[hecd2]

Spock,
Supernatural knowledge comes in degrees. One goes from kindergarten to elementary and high school and finally to undergrad and graduate stuff. At the top of the progression is knowledge of God, but you can’t just jump there from the elementary school level. Consider the following hierarchy:

physical nature (matter/energy)
|
phenomenological signals (matter/energy)
|
nervous system (matter/energy)
|
brain (matter/energy)
|
mind (?)
|
thought (?)

I put a question mark next to the last two because it is here that materialists and spiritualists usually part company. Thought systems like chemistry, physics and mathematics are, insofar as they are abstract, incorporeal. Incorporeal things require an incorporeal environment in which to subsist (i.e. a mind). This incorporeality is particularly evident in the case of mathematics as mathematical theorems can be developed independent of any phenomenological framework. If you know math then you know something incorporeal, and if incorporeal truth is what you are driving at when you say “supernatural epistemology” then algebra, combinatorics, and calculus fit the bill nicely.

So let me be clear about what you are saying here. Are you saying that you can test the truth of the proposition “Human beings have souls which are their animating principles, but which lie beyond the natural domain, and so survive material death” mathematically, ie with a formal axiomatic system? If that’s not your meaning, then what is the purpose of referencing mathematics?

The mistake materialists make is failing to notice that the “hard” sciences are in fact supernatural since they look down upon nature from an incorporeal vantage point. Materialists collapse mind into brain, thought into neurons, and theological claims into hogwash by applying scientific arguments that are themselves supernatural. In this way they saw off the branch upon which they sit.

Oh let’s not argue about whether the mind and brain are separate, or whether the existence of abstract ideas proves the existence of the supernatural. That’s irrelevant to the question at hand. So, for the sake of the argument, I accept your analysis here - that there is an incorporeal (as you call it) domain that is independent of the matter-energy domain. Now, how does that answer the question: “how can we have high confidence that a specific proposition about the supernatural is true?”. Feel free to use the proposition regarding the immortal soul above as an example - what method do you use to determine whether it’s a true or a false proposition?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’ve been observing this thread and it seems to me that believers in the supernatural are misunderstanding the question, answering different questions, and challenging the validity of the OP’s own epistemology, none of which actually answer the question.

Which is: how can you have high confidence that a proposition about the supernatural is true?

It is not: Does the supernatural exist?
It is not: Does God exist?
It is not: Show how you use the epistemology of science to test the supernatural world.

An example that is very important to Catholic theology is as follows. The proposition is: “Human beings have souls which are their animating principles, but which lie beyond the natural domain, and so survive material death”. How do you know with high confidence that that is a true proposition? If you say because the Church tells me so, or Tradition tells me so, or because it’s a beautiful idea, or it’s self-evident to me, or scholastic metaphysics, that’s fine - the OP, and now me, are just trying to understand what reliable epistemology exists for supernatural propositions and whether there is any objective universally verifiable one (by universally verifiable, I mean verifiable in principle by anyone). Thomistic metaphysics might qualify, provided that its axioms, which are abstracted from observing the natural world, are indeed true.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I don’t think the OP said the epistemology had to be reliable. If it was reliable there would be more agreement between religions. I tried to present the real epistemology that people actually use. Then I tried to show that we rely on uncertain ideas in other areas as well. I didn’t claim it was reliable in the sense that it gave certain knowledge, like a proof. I hope that wasn’t derailing the thread.

 

[Spock]

I don’t think the OP said the epistemology had to be reliable.

It did not say it explicitly, but, of course the assumption of reliability was there. Otherwise what is the use of epistemology? Don’t forget, epistemology is “how do we gain knowledge?”. If the method to gain knowledge is not reliable, then the knowledge is not reliable.

Consider the following proposition made by the Catholic Church: “human beings gain their souls at the moment of conception”. How do we know that this proposition is true? Consider, also that there was no concensus about the moment of “ensoulment” across the ages. For a long time theologians asserted that ensoulment happens at the “quickening”. In some languages the word “soul” is derived from “breathing”, so the ensoulment was supposed to happen at birth (the first breath). If such a question cannot be answered with a high reliability, then the whole problem of abortion goes away.

If it was reliable there would be more agreement between religions.

And this is very true. It is a house of cards.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It did not say it explicitly, but, of course the assumption of reliability was there. Otherwise what is the use of epistemology? Don’t forget, epistemology is “how do we gain knowledge?”. If the method to gain knowledge is not reliable, then the knowledge is not reliable.

Consider the following proposition made by the Catholic Church: “human beings gain their souls at the moment of conception”. How do we know that this proposition is true? Consider, also that there was no concensus about the moment of “ensoulment” across the ages. For a long time theologians asserted that ensoulment happens at the “quickening”. In some languages the word “soul” is derived from “breathing”, so the ensoulment was supposed to happen at birth (the first breath). If such a question cannot be answered with a high reliability, then the whole problem of abortion goes away.

And this is very true. It is a house of cards.

Most of those questions are belief, not knowledge. I don’t think that means that they are a house of cards. But perhaps talking about the usefulness of belief when knowledge isn’t available, doesn’t fall within epistemology.

 

[Spock]

Most of those questions are belief, not knowledge. I don’t think that means that they are a house of cards. But perhaps talking about the usefulness of belief when knowledge isn’t available, doesn’t fall within epistemology.

Now we are in 100% agreement! Beliefs are important, even if they cannot be proven.