Why do Christians reject the supernatural claims of non-Christians?

[AgnosticBoy]

On another thread, Gorgias claimed the following:

Gorgias, post:213, topic:448435

With respect to the question of “rejection”, I’ll continue to hold to my original claim: Christians reject it for the same reason that non-Christians do – lack of evidence.

Another forum member, STT, claimed to meet multiple gods but yet there seems to be skepticism here from some Catholics.

So here’s the topic:
In terms of evidence, why do Christians reject the claims of supernatural experiences from non-Christians?

If there is no evidential difference, is it a double standard to accept one and reject the other (e.g. STT’s claim)?

 

[Gorgias]

In terms of evidence, why do Christians reject the claims of supernatural experiences from non-Christians?

By ‘supernatural’, do you mean claims about other god(s) and associated belief systems?

Or, do you mean claims about the world (e.g., in the original thread you cite, the claim was about extraterrestrial beings)? Or, do you mean claims about supernatural physical occurrences (interactions between non-Christian ‘gods’ and the physical universe)? Or something else?

I think I’d have a distinct reply or two for these various cases.

If there is no evidential difference, is it a double standard to accept one and reject the other (e.g. STT’s claim)?

I’ll defer answering this question until I know which question (about the ‘supernatural’) you’re asking…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Because belief in other gods is incompatible with Catholicism; asking us why we reject other gods is like asking an evolutionary biologist why they reject the claims of young Earth creationists…

As for their other supernatural claims, it comes down to evidence, they don’t generally provide any. Supernatural claims in the Catholic Church are tested before any kind of official ratification.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Many Popes have acknowledged that religions outside of Catholicism, even non-Christian ones, may hold with them some valuable element of true faith, though they err in other matters.

For me, I tend not to believe in miracles and supernatural claims as a whole. I will only take claim seriously after it has been firmly vetted by the Church. I understand that the Church hires the best doctors and scientists to search for a reasonable and logical explanation that something occurred before declaring it supernatural.

Unfortunately, both non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians lack both the know-how and manpower to investigate these incidents in a scientific way so as to eliminate any chance of an extraordinary, but a scientifically explainable situation. I would be inclined to believe that a true supernatural occurrence happened if impartial scientists lead credence to the happening. However, as far as I am aware, this virtually never happens.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Christians reject most Christian claims of the supernatural. As do non-Christians.

 

[SanRafael1102]

Crusaderbear beat me to the punch. Neither you, nor I, nor even any current Pontiff, know about all of the virtually countless supernatural claims made by Catholics that have been rejected by the Catholic Church.

Naturally, supernatural claims that would dispute what Catholics know to be truth would be given the utmost scrutiny, so much so, that if anyone made such a claim, the Church would probably not even bother. It would take evidence like the Buddha literally descending out of Heaven (or wherever Buddhists believe in) onto the porch of St. Peter’s for the Church to seriously consider it.

We are also warned that Satan can take form of an angel of light (which Tolkien models immaculately in his LOTR books with that world’s Dark Lord). What this means is that the Devil, who is a deceiver, is known to take on a pleasant facade or visage in order to lead us astray. Naturally, we should therefore all approach any supernatural claim with extreme scrutiny. If the Devil exists, which Catholics not spouting heretical mumbo-jumbo have to believe is true, then we have to realize that he will try to trick us.

Also, while I accept that we are all sisters/brothers in Christ, that we share some theology, and that I know some Protestants who live better “Catholic” lives than many Catholics I know; it’s very weird to ask “Why do Christians do…” leaving the interpretation to the wide spectrum of Christians.

For instance: I get asked, “Why are Christians forced to believe that the Universe was made in 7 [human, standard, 24 hour, face-of-the-clock, etc.] days?” He’s heard Christians say this, but the Church does not force its members to believe so. Some Protestant groups do! Many great thinkers of the Church have mentioned the poetic styling of early Genesis. So, the Church doesn’t dictate that a purely literal interpretation is necessary to salvation.

If we accepted all of the claims, well we’d end up like…

 

[BenedicamDominum]

Another forum member, STT, claimed to meet multiple gods but yet there seems to be skepticism here from some Catholics.

Distrusting the claims of someone on the internet hardly strikes me as being peculiar to Christians, no?

As for myself, I don’t doubt that non-Christians can have all kinds of experiences, whether supernatural, preternatural, psychological, psychiatric, and so forth. Experiences are not inconsistent with Christianity.

If someone makes claims that contradict basic presuppositions I bring to the table, then of course I will interpret those claims in a manner more consistent with those presuppositions. The presuppositions themselves have to be dealt with on their own, and are not simply thrown away because someone else may disagree with them based on a claimed personal encounter with something.

 

[MPat]

Another forum member, STT, claimed to meet multiple gods but yet there seems to be skepticism here from some Catholics.

I’d say it would be nice to see the context (what exactly was claimed, what exactly was rejected) before making any conclusions.

So here’s the topic:

In terms of evidence, why do Christians reject the claims of supernatural experiences from non-Christians?

The question is too general and is based on several false (mostly unstated) premises.

First false premise is “[All] Christians reject [all] claims of supernatural experiences from non-Christians.”. Christians are different and claims are different. Some Christians accept some claims, some other Christians reject them. That is true about almost all claims, not merely “supernatural” ones. Christians are just too numerous.

Second false premise is that “claims of supernatural experiences from non-Christians” can only be either accepted or rejected. But there are many alternative options. In most cases we just don’t care. Or we can accept that experience happened, and accept that it was “supernatural”, but interpret it differently. For example, if someone reports seeing his guardian angel after dabbling with occult, we can accept that he did see something and that this “something” might have been an “angel”, but, um, not a good angel (in other words, that it was a demon). Does that count as accepting or rejecting experience?

Third false premise is that it is possible to outline a useful general method to judge if a claim is to be accepted, and to do so in a forum post. If that was the case, people wouldn’t be able to write whole textbooks on Logic, Rhetoric or Criminalistics.

If there is no evidential difference, is it a double standard to accept one and reject the other (e.g. STT’s claim)?

Why would it have to be?

It is not hard to make a trivial “single standard” - let’s say, of the type “Mr. X is not trustworthy on topic Y.”.

For example, atheists are notoriously untrustworthy on the topic of pet dragons.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

By ‘supernatural’, do you mean claims about other god(s) and associated belief systems?

Or, do you mean claims about the world (e.g., in the original thread you cite, the claim was about extraterrestrial beings)? Or, do you mean claims about supernatural physical occurrences (interactions between non-Christian ‘gods’ and the physical universe)? Or something else?

I’m referring to supernatural experiences, whether they involve experiences with or of beings, events, or places. I emphasize experiences because those would leave evidence as opposed to just faith.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

By ‘supernatural’, do you mean claims about other god(s) and associated belief systems?

Or, do you mean claims about the world (e.g., in the original thread you cite, the claim was about extraterrestrial beings)? Or, do you mean claims about supernatural physical occurrences (interactions between non-Christian ‘gods’ and the physical universe)? Or something else?

I’m referring to supernatural experiences, whether they involve experiences with or of beings, events, or places. I emphasize experiences because those would leave evidence as opposed to just going by faith.

Still, are you talking about experiences of other ‘gods’? Or of experiences that are this-worldly, but which some attribute to other ‘gods’? What type of experiences are you talking about, that you characterize as ‘supernatural’?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Still, are you talking about experiences of other ‘gods’? Or of experiences that are this-worldly, but which some attribute to other ‘gods’? What type of experiences are you talking about, that you characterize as ‘supernatural’?

I’m referring to any supernatural experience. Experiences involving God or gods is just one example. There’s also communication with the dead, miraculous feats in other religions, claims of miraculous feats today, reincarnation, etc. What good evidence is there to show that all of these non-Christian supernatural experiences are false or a deception from the Devil?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Because belief in other gods is incompatible with Catholicism; asking us why we reject other gods is like asking an evolutionary biologist why they reject the claims of young Earth creationists…

I agree that Christians would reject the supernatural claims of non-Christians because of doctrine/dogma. However, I’m looking for an evidential/logical reason as to why Christians would reject the experiences of others, and I don’t only mean in the sense of rejecting something based on lack of evidence, but also rejecting them a priori - as in they’re all automatically false from the get-go.

As for their other supernatural claims, it comes down to evidence, they don’t generally provide any. Supernatural claims in the Catholic Church are tested before any kind of official ratification.

Okay, so I assume that you only accept Christian claims that have only been tested by the Catholic Church. That leaves a lot of other Christian claims, including the ones in the Bible, in the dark. **Do you also accept Christian claims, including your own, that have not been tested by the Catholic Church? I’d also like to question just what Catholic “testing” is because I have my own response to that but I’ll save it for later.

 

[Gorgias]

I agree that Christians would reject the supernatural claims of non-Christians because of doctrine/dogma. However, I’m looking for an evidential/logical reason as to why Christians would reject the experiences of others

So, here’s my question to you: if my belief system – which I believe comes directly from God – tells me that reincarnation is false, and other gods do not exist, and that communication with the dead is verboten… then why do I need a ‘evidential’ reason to reject such claims? Why would I even search for one?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

So, here’s my question to you: if my belief system – which I believe comes directly from God – tells me that reincarnation is false, and other gods do not exist, and that communication with the dead is verboten… then why do I need a ‘evidential’ reason to reject such claims? Why would I even search for one?

Remember, it was your claim that Christians reject things based on lack of “evidence”. You came off as a gnostic theist on these matters just a day ago but now so far you have not yielded any knowledge nor means for knowing how or why non-Christian supernatural experiences are false. Belief systems are not evidence so rejecting claims based on that is not an evidential reason.

 

[Gorgias]

Remember, it was your claim that Christians reject things based on lack of “evidence”.

No… I claimed that Christians reject claims of alien abduction based on lack of evidence! (And I still stand on that claim.)

But, that wasn’t a general claim that Christians reject all claims based on evidence; sometimes, doctrine comes into play, as in the example of reincarnation.

 

[mkoopman]

This may be getting closer to what you want to understand, and I commend your persistence in seeking a grounded answer. However it may be that your proposal is too broad, too general to have a complete reply in some simplistic set of rules. The matter of the supernatural is often too complex to find standard answers or any except unique cases.
God is why this is so and our forming in God’s image reflects an unknowable depth of love and mercy. God speaks to all of His children. Read Acts and recognize Peter’s supernatural experience before Cornelius confirms the Holy Spirit is poured out to the Gentiles. The Church does not claim an exclusive access or any form of control over The Holy Spirit. Indeed it is the other way around in that The Church claims obedience to God not an oracle relationship.
Personal revelation after The Gospels and New Testament writings are not understood to extend what is necessary for salvation. These may help understanding but do not add new elements to what is necessary for salvation. So neither Catholic, Christian of another denomination nor others are believed to present new revelation about God.
Expecting an experience is a misinterpretation of God’s call to come to the fullness of His revelation may be what you call rejection of another’s supernatural truth. Most doubt the truth of oracle voices and skepticism may be thr right choice.

 

[ericc]

Because belief in other gods is incompatible with Catholicism; asking us why we reject other gods is like asking an evolutionary biologist why they reject the claims of young Earth creationists…

In fact we do accept supernatural claims except we don’t think they are from gods. We understand the Devil can and posses such powers. The Church has done many exorcisms. She has encountered many devils/demons in that process often times demanding their names. The Church does not plunge into exorcisms without going through all the necessary medical verifications. The Church has been very conservative in approving apparitions often times only when the evidence is overwhelming, such as countless eyewitnesses. Hence without verification, on an online forum, it is next to impossible to accept such supernatural claims, whether from God, gods, or otherwise. It may caused a raised eyebrow perhaps.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Which supernatural claims do I reject?
One person hears a voice coming from a burning bush and understands it is Jehovah. Another passerby might see the exact same thing and think the bush itself is a ‘god’. Yet another might think the flames are deserving of worship not the bush. Someone else might say there are many gods- a flame god, a bush god, a god of the earth who made the tree to grow.

I think it is the atheist who universally rejects the claims of non-Christians. Not me.

 

[STT]

Another forum member, STT, claimed to meet multiple gods but yet there seems to be skepticism here from some Catholics.

So here’s the topic:

In terms of evidence, why do Christians reject the claims of supernatural experiences from non-Christians?

If there is no evidential difference, is it a double standard to accept one and reject the other (e.g. STT’s claim)?

Interesting. I also have conversation with Jesus in daily basis.

 

[STT]

Because belief in other gods is incompatible with Catholicism; asking us why we reject other gods is like asking an evolutionary biologist why they reject the claims of young Earth creationists…

As for their other supernatural claims, it comes down to evidence, they don’t generally provide any. Supernatural claims in the Catholic Church are tested before any kind of official ratification.

Tested? What do you mean?