What is the standard skeptics use for "mass hallucination"?

[dostoyevskyfan]

In 1934, the attendance for the world cup finals was around 50,000. (fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompwc/51/97/30/ip-301_01a_fwc-stats.pdf) Do any skeptics doubt the outcome of that game or attribute it to “mass hallucination”?

In 1917 in Fatima, Portugal, around the same amount of people 40,000 witnessed a miracle of the sun which the Catholic Church deemed “worthy of belief”, yet many skeptics claim this was “mass hallucination”?

Why? Is it because they have a vested interest in NOT believing the events actually occurred? But this can’t be logical, because I’m sure many people who were eye witnesses of the 1934 World Cup Finals had a “vested interest” in NOT believing those events either. If the Catholic Church deemed the outcome of the 1934 World Cup finals as “worthy of belief”, would THEN skeptics charge the eye-witnesses with mass hallucination?

What kind of standard are these people using?

What about the recent apparition of Christ in Nigeria nigerianobservernews.com/06082010/news/news1.html? It was witnessed by thousands of people. Was this too, mass hallucination?

 

[Della]

Playing devil’s advocate here, they might say it was mass hysteria or an optional illusion or a projection of a picture to explain such occurrences. In my experience on the forum, I’ve never read anything by any atheist in which any of them actually investigated Fatima or any other mass apparition, but rather they seem to have a knee-jerk rejection of them and anything written about apparitions that favors them, believing they simply do not/cannot occur, according to their way of thinking. Just saying…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In 1934, the attendance for the world cup finals was around 50,000. (fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompwc/51/97/30/ip-301_01a_fwc-stats.pdf) Do any skeptics doubt the outcome of that game or attribute it to “mass hallucination”?

In 1917 in Fatima, Portugal, around the same amount of people 40,000 witnessed a miracle of the sun which the Catholic Church deemed “worthy of belief”, yet many skeptics claim this was “mass hallucination”?

Why?

Theist: 40,000 people witnessed a miracle. Its documented, so you can look it up. No reasonable person would entertain doubt if the object of their experience was something other than that which implied Gods existence. They would accept it. So why not accept this?

Honest Atheist: I don’t have to look it up. Supernatural events cannot be real.

Theist: Why not?

Honest Atheist: Because i don’t want them to be real!.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Playing devil’s advocate here, they might say it was mass hysteria or an optional illusion or a projection of a picture to explain such occurrences. In my experience on the forum, I’ve never read anything by any atheist in which any of them actually investigated Fatima or any other mass apparition, but rather they seem to have a knee-jerk rejection of them and anything written about apparitions that favors them, believing they simply do not/cannot occur, according to their way of thinking. Just saying…

Why don’t those same people claim that the 1934 World Cup finals was “mass hysteria” or an “optical illusion”? Why aren’t there people who contend that Czechoslovakia won and not Italy in 1934? I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the World Cup, but there is certainly more hysteria en mass there than in some no name town in Portugal or Nigeria. Fights break out, people become intoxicated beyond reason, people take off their clothes and streak the field…why is an account from 50,000 insane and intoxicated persons more reliable than the account of 40,000 sober people?

 

[humble_catholic]

MindoverMatter, you hit the nail right on the head. They dont want it to be real for some reason or another. I remember once an unbeliever was asking me to give him just one well documented miracle. I pointed to Fatima since I studied it intensely. She asked me to show her an independent atheist source that covered it and I gave her el seculo, the national atheistic Newspaper which was there to try to embarress believers all over the world. When even the atheist journalist after witnessing the miracle called it a supernatural event, the unbeliever I was conversing with said IT DIDNT PROVE A THING.
That was when I packed it in on that argument. Reason, Logic and honesty have left the building ladies and gentleman.

Theist: 40,000 people witnessed a miracle. Its documented, so you can look it up. No reasonable person would entertain doubt if the object of their experience was something other than that which implied Gods existence. They would accept it. So why not accept this?

Honest Atheist: I don’t have to look it up. Supernatural events cannot be real.

Theist: Why not?

Honest Atheist: Because i don’t want them to be real!.

 

[kaid100]

This skeptic didn’t know much about the events at Fatima, but having read the Wikipedia article I am intrigued. Far from saying “I don’t want it to be real” or “I don’t have to look it up”, I would say that these events merit further study. I was ready to put the events down to people seeing what they wanted to see, but the common sighting of a spinning disc effect rather than, say, a choir of angels, is mundane enough to be possible. According to the article, one physicist (at a Catholic University, no less) put it down to prolonged staring at the Sun, but this doesn’t ring true for me, often people have stared at eclipses too long and damaged their sight, but a spinning effect hasn’t been reported. However, being a skeptic, how would I choose one supernatural phenomenon over another? Why should I put it down to God rather than Apollo, or a ghost, or a witch-doctor?

A skeptic, facing an unexplained phenomena, would look to expand his scientific knowledge. After all, the sun sometimes does the apparently more drastic effect of disappearing completely for a few minutes, only to gradually appear as a crescent before coming back to a full circle. This must have confused earlier civilisations, but we now can see what causes it without resorting to supernatural explanations, just as we can lightning and flame.

 

[Della]

Why don’t those same people claim that the 1934 World Cup finals was “mass hysteria” or an “optical illusion”? Why aren’t there people who contend that Czechoslovakia won and not Italy in 1934? I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the World Cup, but there is certainly more hysteria en mass there than in some no name town in Portugal or Nigeria. Fights break out, people become intoxicated beyond reason, people take off their clothes and streak the field…why is an account from 50,000 insane and intoxicated persons more reliable than the account of 40,000 sober people?

You’ll have to ask them that. I haven’t a clue other than a total unwillingness to give credit where credit is due when it comes to things they simply don’t want to believe. No one can make anyone believe anything who is unwilling to open heart and mind.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A skeptic, facing an unexplained phenomena, would look to expand his scientific knowledge.

Yes, I agree. But don’t you see that this presumes the falsity of supernatural explanations, which is the very point at issue here.

Consider the definition of a “scientific law”: an exceptionless regularity in nature.

Now suppose that we thought that gravity was a scientific law. Then someone walks on water. The good scientist, observing the phenomenon, checks for trickery – but if there was no trickery, they simply conclude that “gravity was *never *a true scientific law.”

But this is exactly why science is self-validating. Suppose a scientist says that “Every event has a scientific cause”. Then ten thousand people see the clouds turn to hamburgers. The proper scientific response is not wonder, or awe, or confusion, but rather ACCOMMODATION.

They will try to naturalize the occurrence, to find other causes that might explain the phenomenon. Failing that, they will posit some “dark matter” or “nameless force” that causes clouds to turn to burgers. *But how is this distinguishable from attributing it to God? *Only in this way: when we attribute it to God, we have to test it against the supposed characteristics of God (or the differing characteristics of different “gods”).

Thus, Asimov says, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Science offers connections between phenomena, but not explanations of phenomena.

As soon as a scientific theory is violated even once, it is falsified. Thus, miracles are **defined **out of existence by many scientists. But that’s just the trick of a sophist, not the reasoning of a rational man!

 

[kaid100]

Yes, I agree. But don’t you see that this presumes the falsity of supernatural explanations, which is the very point at issue here.

A scientist does not assume the falsity of supernatural explanations, they just don’t assume as a matter of faith the truth of supernatural explanations.

Consider the definition of a “scientific law”: an exceptionless regularity in nature.

Is that the complete definition? I’d be interested in the full definition you have in front of you. Chaos theory is an example of a branch of science which is nonregular in nature/

Now suppose that we thought that gravity was a scientific law. Then someone walks on water. The good scientist, observing the phenomenon, checks for trickery – but if there was no trickery, they simply conclude that “gravity was *never *a true scientific law.”

They would certainly seek to adjust their theories and understand the new phenomenon, that is not in doubt. Note that a scientist would need to see an experiment repeated.

But this is exactly why science is self-validating. Suppose a scientist says that “Every event has a scientific cause”. Then ten thousand people see the clouds turn to hamburgers. The proper scientific response is not wonder, or awe, or confusion, but rather ACCOMMODATION.

They will try to naturalize the occurrence, to find other causes that might explain the phenomenon. Failing that, they will posit some “dark matter” or “nameless force” that causes clouds to turn to burgers. *But how is this distinguishable from attributing it to God? *Only in this way: when we attribute it to God, we have to test it against the supposed characteristics of God (or the differing characteristics of different “gods”).

As it happens, I’m a bit iffy about Dark Matter myself, but this is distinguishable from belief in God because a theory about Dark Matter doesn’t assume that Dark Matter created the world, sent its Son to Earth, answers prayers etc.

Thus, Asimov says, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Science offers connections between phenomena, but not explanations of phenomena.

First, it was Arthur C Clarke, Second, Science does offer explanations. Tides come in and out because of the gravity of the Sun and Moon. Rainbows are formed by dispersion of light through a different medium.

, it is falsified. Thus, miracles are **defined **out of existence by many scientists. But that’s just the trick of a sophist, not the reasoning of a rational man!

A true miracle would be analysed, not dismissed, in order to find out the science behind it.

 

[Moonstruck888]

It sounds a lot more like a solar eclipse to me than a divine miracle…

What exactly did it achieve? What was so miraculous about it?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A true miracle would be analysed, not dismissed, in order to find out the science behind it.

But this is exactly my point. You assume that there is science behind a miracle.

Suppose there are scientific explanations for miracles. Then, the supernatural explanation of a miracle is redundant. The event happened (according to the scientist) because of scientific rules. But then why call it a miracle?

As soon as you “find the science” behind a miracle, you negate the miracle.

Unfortunately, however, finding the science is an inductive, not a deductive, task. Among the possible causes NOT included in the scientific induction is divine causation. Unfortunately, the number of inductive possibilities we allow for is determined by our past experiences and theories. Thus, an ontology that does not include divine beings can never include divine beings unless the theory changes to allow it.

This is basic metascience, but many scientists haven’t even considered it.

 

[Moonstruck888]

This is basic metascience, but many scientists haven’t even considered it.

If scientists started dealing in metascience, it would meant the end of Western civilization…

 

[humble_catholic]

It sounds a lot more like a solar eclipse to me than a divine miracle…

What exactly did it achieve? What was so miraculous about it?

How convenient that you left out the instantaneous drying of peoples clothing which scientist say should have also incinerated those people. Like I said , if you want to disbelieve something bad enough its possible to do so, but is it reasonable? When studied seperately you might be able to give some natural reasons for fatime but taken all together its much more reasonable to say it was a supernatural event. Its also convenient that most (but not all skeptics) will also skip this part of the event.

 

[Della]

It sounds a lot more like a solar eclipse to me than a divine miracle…

The timing of solar eclipses are well known. There was none that day.

What exactly did it achieve?

The real question is: What would it have to achieve in order to be relevant to you? That you would have to explore for yourself. It did garner the Church’s approval as “worthy of belief” after much investigation into all possible natural causes. And no, the Church doesn’t give automatic approval to any and all claims to supernatural events, such as apparitions and locutions, etc. It’s a long, grilling process as affirmed by those who have gone through it, such as St. Bernadette (Lourdes) and Sr. Lucia.

What was so miraculous about it?

The sun moving about in the sky, drying up soaking wet ground and people plus many healings, not to mention the establishment of a world renowned pilgrimage site to which millions come every year, just for example.

 

[Moonstruck888]

How convenient that you left out the instantaneous drying of peoples clothing which scientist say should have also incinerated those people.

A load of pig swill from some frightened and uneducated peasants living in an impoverished and backwards country a century ago, probably being manipulated by certain interest groups…

I left it out because it’s instantly dismissable. You’re quite correct, if they were heated to the point where the water in their clothes evaporated instantly, they would have been killed, ergo it didn’t happen.

 

[Della]

A load of pig swill from some frightened and uneducated peasants living in an impoverished and backwards country a century ago, probably being manipulated by certain interest groups…

Not quite. The secular newsman who reported the event would have said the same things until he saw it for himself. It’s well documented.

I left it out because it’s instantly dismissable. You’re quite correct, if they were heated to the point where the water in their clothes evaporated instantly, they would have been killed, ergo it didn’t happen.

It would be impossible under natural circumstances, but it wasn’t a natural circumstance, it was a miracle. It happened. Again, it’s well documented by people who were there who didn’t want to believe in supernatural occurrences. They had to admit what actually happened simply because it did happen.

Don’t you think that merely denying it is a poor argument against something that happened to hundreds of people?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If scientists started dealing in metascience, it would meant the end of Western civilization…

Do you mean to say that the scientific method is self-confirming? Or do you mean to say that we shouldn’t care about whether science gets at truth, but simply assume science gets at truth?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Do you mean to say that the scientific method is self-confirming? Or do you mean to say that we shouldn’t care about whether science gets at truth, but simply assume science gets at truth?

I’m saying that as long as science works, as long as it pushes the boundaries of technology and increases the power of mankind, who cares about the so called truth?

There are no answers. Only choices. The sooner people realise that, the happier we’ll all be.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Not quite. The secular newsman who reported the event would have said the same things until he saw it for himself. It’s well documented.

Sensational story, fast bucks, Pulitzer prize…

The people who work in the media wouldn’t know the truth if they fell over it…

It would be impossible under natural circumstances, but it wasn’t a natural circumstance, it was a miracle. It happened. Again, it’s well documented by people who were there who didn’t want to believe in supernatural occurrences. They had to admit what actually happened simply because it did happen.

Don’t you think that merely denying it is a poor argument against something that happened to hundreds of people?

No I don’t… I think the whole thing was probably blown completely out of proportion.

Remember the Swine Flu epidemic last winter that was going to decimate the human race?

Remember the Iraqi Nuclear Weapons program that could take out Western Targets in 45 minutes?

Remember the test planes flying in the Nevada Desert in the late 1940’s that have now turned into flying saucers?

Remember the Quatraines of Michele De Nostradame, that predicted the end of civilisation in 1999 and how they were married to the Y2K bug that was going to cripple the global Internet?

Things are blown out of proportion all the time. People are very susceptible to suggestion.

 

[MichaelR]

Don’t forget, there’s a lot of Catholics and Christians who don’t believe in them, or at least in all of them, either.

I think the thing to remember is…back before a lot of things we now take for granted was understood, people put things down to ‘magic’ or superstition or ‘miracle’. Ordinary healing for instance…the way that fevers break…a chemical reaction…gun powder even at first. So when it’s easy to see how people once saw things that we now regard as common as place as some kind of magic or miracle, it is difficult for people not to simply see that the same can be applied to what some people consider to be miracles.

And as for atheists, the argument would be placed the other way around…rather than saying why do they assume that a miracle must be science based, they would say why do you assume that it must be the work of God because that is assumption rather than proved.