tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7308689000408883275..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: A naturalist attempts to define the supernatural Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2363757884588997992014-12-23T01:55:38.720-07:002014-12-23T01:55:38.720-07:00Crude,
I still don't understand why you brin...Crude, <br /><br />I still don't understand why you bring up Zeus as a supposed counterexample to various definitions of naturalism (including, but not limited to, mine). As I understand Greek mythology, all sorts of physically impossible acts are attributed to Zeus. Quoting Wikipedia, such acts include:<br /><br />* Zeus turned Periphas into an eagle, making him the king of birds.<br />* At the marriage of Zeus and Hera, a nymph named Chelone refused to attend. <br />* Zeus transformed her into a tortoise (chelone in Greek).<br />* Zeus, with Hera, turned King Haemus and Queen Rhodope into mountains (the Balkan mountains, or Stara Planina, and Rhodope mountains, respectively) for their vanity.<br />* Zeus condemned Tantalus to eternal torture in Tartarus for trying to trick the gods into eating the flesh of his butchered son Pelops.<br />* Zeus condemned Ixion to be tied to a fiery wheel for eternity as punishment for attempting to violate Hera.<br />* Zeus sank the Telchines beneath the sea.<br /><br />If Zeus really existed and did those things, then it's hard to see how naturalism could be true. The existence of Zeus does seem to be logically incompatible with metaphysical naturalism.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46317071283780589402014-12-09T19:38:36.284-07:002014-12-09T19:38:36.284-07:00True. It's based on the track record. The Go...True. It's based on the track record. The God of the Gaps has an ever-shrinking domain, and science keeps filling in those gaps.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24132929626010609962014-12-09T17:59:23.652-07:002014-12-09T17:59:23.652-07:00But isn't always open to us to say that even t...But isn't always open to us to say that even though we don't know how to explain it naturalistically now, give science time, and they'll come up with the naturalistic explanation? Isn't that what naturalists say whenever they charge theists with having a God of the Gaps? Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71044868158367997992014-12-09T17:16:37.858-07:002014-12-09T17:16:37.858-07:00To make the observation that we never observe supe...To make the observation that we never observe supernatural beings or events is not begging the question. Science does not reject all things supernatural, as you claim. Science deals with whatever we observe. If it were the case that we observed something that can't be explained by natural laws, science would not simply deny that those things exist. It would attempt to explain them. And if the best explanation turned out to be something like spirits or God, then so be it. But it is undeniable that we simply never see things that require such an explanation. im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78559373010202663172014-12-09T16:00:14.562-07:002014-12-09T16:00:14.562-07:00Do you think that, if an omnipotent being existed,...Do you think that, if an omnipotent being existed, he could cause a person to rise form the dead? <br /><br />Obviously, dead people aren't going to arise without something to provide the energy to cause them to arise. The question is still the causal closure of what we now think of as the physical, whether something exists that has the power to influence the material world currently understood. If you assume that there can't be anything like that, why is that not begging the question. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88276999280880531822014-12-09T15:24:43.867-07:002014-12-09T15:24:43.867-07:00"But since we don't know what "ultim..."But since we don't know what "ultimate completed future science" will include we can't say for sure whether these entities are natural or supernatural."<br /><br />In the future, science will undoubtedly learn more about the cosmos, or about the nature of subatomic particles and fundamental forces. But I don't think it will one day come to the realization that dead people can just get up and walk (at least not without some kind of technical intervention that remains unavailable to us with our current technology).im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7660563675374598772014-12-09T14:56:06.007-07:002014-12-09T14:56:06.007-07:00Well, without a good definition of the supernatura...Well, without a good definition of the supernatural it's going to be awfully difficult to prove any cases. In fact, I just say I believe in God et al., but depending on how you define the supernatural, I am not sure I believe that supernatural entities exist. I can imagine saying that God, angels, and souls all exist, but that science just hasn't developed enough to analyze and predict the activities of these entities. So they are supernatural from the standpoint of present science, but then so are lots of things that science will someday discover. But since we don't know what "ultimate completed future science" will include we can't say for sure whether these entities are natural or supernatural. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46093263462043190232014-12-08T16:34:09.494-07:002014-12-08T16:34:09.494-07:00But the fact remains that there has never, ever be...<i>But the fact remains that there has never, ever been a documented, proven case of any miracle or supernatural entity that is unequivocally true.</i><br /><br />Did you not notice this entire thread has illustrated the problem of even defining supernatural?<br /><br />Here's one, Skep: The fact remains that there has never, ever been a documented, proven case of any natural or non-miraculous event that is unequivocally true.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62323104480447345852014-12-06T19:11:00.763-07:002014-12-06T19:11:00.763-07:00Of course, the remark was made tongue in cheek. B...Of course, the remark was made tongue in cheek. But the fact remains that there has never, ever been a documented, proven case of any miracle or supernatural entity that is unequivocally true. We have plenty of claims, but we have no proof.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3598917574322321322014-12-06T18:24:09.610-07:002014-12-06T18:24:09.610-07:00You can't make nonexistence a defining charact...You can't make nonexistence a defining characteristic of the supernatural. If there is no supernatural, it is not trivially true that it doesn't exist. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12083906749872488442014-12-06T16:12:35.959-07:002014-12-06T16:12:35.959-07:00And the sad thing is, Skep actually thinks that...And the sad thing is, Skep actually thinks that's a valid definition. And he wonders why people laugh. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12159111814843662892014-12-05T12:45:43.601-07:002014-12-05T12:45:43.601-07:00There is a simple way to distinguish the natural f...There is a simple way to distinguish the natural from the supernatural.<br /><br />Natural: things that exist and events that occur in out universe.<br /><br />Supernatural: things and events postulated by the superstitious that don't exist and never occur in our universe.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22786728191341919122014-12-02T21:24:50.613-07:002014-12-02T21:24:50.613-07:00Maybe some of our physicist or engineering friends...<i>Maybe some of our physicist or engineering friends can answer your question about measuring energy in a system. I'm just a humble computer programmer / science fiction author.</i><br /><br />Should I take that as, no, you've never actually measured the energy content of anything - but you're assuming that everything you've encountered in your life follows the rule you think it should, and if there are discrepancies, it doesn't matter?<br /><br /><i>It's not supernaturalism-of-the-gaps if you say it "might" be. Only if you say it surely is.</i><br /><br />So the only problem with God-of-the-gaps arguments is with the supposed certainty some people have? Likewise, I suppose, with naturalism-of-the-gaps?<br /><br /><i>One thing's for sure - it's a supernaturalism-of-the-gaps response if you say something is supernatural when you don't have any kind of theory of the supernatural.</i><br /><br />Good thing I eschew talk of the natural and supernatural both.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9151762541721620852014-12-02T21:20:44.762-07:002014-12-02T21:20:44.762-07:00Maybe some of our physicist or engineering friends...Maybe some of our physicist or engineering friends can answer your question about measuring energy in a system. I'm just a humble computer programmer / science fiction author.<br /><br />It's not supernaturalism-of-the-gaps if you say it "might" be. Only if you say it surely is.<br /><br />One thing's for sure - it's a supernaturalism-of-the-gaps response if you say something is supernatural when you don't have any kind of theory of the supernatural.<br />John B. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234524731241646514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30050270013525841982014-12-02T20:26:48.622-07:002014-12-02T20:26:48.622-07:00John,
We don't need to talk about origins. I ...John,<br /><br /><i>We don't need to talk about origins. I know that a rock is natural because I can see it now. (One assumption is that we can't see anything outside our universe.)</i><br /><br />Alright. Considering you just made 'everything that is visible' natural by fiat, I think you've already got an obvious problem.<br /><br /><i>For example, I see the rock has potential energy because it's at the top of a hill. When the rock rolls down the hill, that's totally natural because the event came from the potential energy which already existed in the rock, and I saw it. I could measure the total mass-energy before and after the event of the rock rolling, and I could more or less see that it's the same.</i><br /><br />John, an honest and straightforward question here: when's the last time you measured the total energy of anything at all? I mean anything. And by measurement, I mean at least in a way approximating it the way a physicist would.<br /><br />And why does the existence of inaccuracy ('more or less') automatically get counted in your favor by default?<br /><br /><i>On the other hand, if the rock started to hover 1 meter off the ground, that might be supernatural because I don't know where the energy came from.</i><br /><br />So you're explicitly advocating a supernaturalism-of-the-gaps? Really?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4668908227982204082014-12-02T20:22:00.300-07:002014-12-02T20:22:00.300-07:00We don't need to talk about origins. I know th...We don't need to talk about origins. I know that a rock is natural because I can see it now. (One assumption is that we can't see anything outside our universe.)<br /><br />Maybe this rock appeared in our world supernaturally at some time in the past, and I have no idea about that, but now that the rock is here, it's natural.<br /><br />Any event that happens due to this rock will be natural, because I can see where that event comes from. For example, I see the rock has potential energy because it's at the top of a hill. When the rock rolls down the hill, that's totally natural because the event came from the potential energy which already existed in the rock, and I saw it. I could measure the total mass-energy before and after the event of the rock rolling, and I could more or less see that it's the same.<br /><br />On the other hand, if the rock started to hover 1 meter off the ground, that might be supernatural because I don't know where the energy came from. The potential energy or chemical energy in the rock doesn't seem sufficient to make the rock hover like that. I might take measurements and find more energy in the hovering rock than the previously at-rest rock. So I could speculate that the extra energy might have come from outside our observable space-time universe.John B. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234524731241646514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57123729739833426332014-12-02T20:09:43.370-07:002014-12-02T20:09:43.370-07:00I think the space-time that we can see is a handy ...<i>I think the space-time that we can see is a handy rule-of-thumb way to describe our universe, although it's hard to nail down particular locations due to relativity and all. In order to be "natural," though, a thing must already be in our space-time before we observe its activity. </i><br /><br />Which already means we're incapable of telling if even rocks are 'natural' by your scheme, because we do not witness its origins. And 'making a rock with such and such process' won't work either, because you'll be taking pre-existing material - which you're still left needing to account for.<br /><br />And that's if you handwave away relativity, or physicist claims of matter and energy 'popping into existence', as somehow natural - and if you're going to do that, then what's the point of the scheme to begin with?<br /><br /><i>So the supernatural thing is just the actual event in which extra energy enters our universe. </i><br /><br />So, Sean Carroll advocates a supernatural understanding of the universe.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36640310177955713622014-12-02T19:29:40.684-07:002014-12-02T19:29:40.684-07:00I think the space-time that we can see is a handy ...I think the space-time that we can see is a handy rule-of-thumb way to describe our universe, although it's hard to nail down particular locations due to relativity and all. In order to be "natural," though, a thing must already be in our space-time before we observe its activity. A supernatural thing comes into our space-time from elsewhere, according to my idea.<br /><br />It's interesting that a supernatural thing can become "natural" after it enters our universe. For example, I might shoot lightning from my hands by pulling extra energy into our universe from some different place, and that's supernatural, but afterwards the energy from my lightning might sizzle and bounce around and enter some electronic circuits, and then it would presumably behave in a totally natural (predictable, measurable) way.<br /><br />So the supernatural thing is just the actual event in which extra energy enters our universe. (Just according to my idea)John B. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234524731241646514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38923990058808228592014-12-02T17:43:44.232-07:002014-12-02T17:43:44.232-07:00"John: Does being in the universe mean having...<i>"John: Does being in the universe mean having a particular location in space and time? Is that sufficient for naturalness?"</i><br /><br />Interesting question, Victor. It's your God, you tell us.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19466882774806184572014-12-02T17:38:55.984-07:002014-12-02T17:38:55.984-07:00"In a very conservative estimate I know more ...<i>"In a very conservative estimate I know more mathematics than 99.99% and more physics than 99.9% of the World's population."</i><br /><br />That may be the case. But there is one thing to know something but another to apply that knowledge in the conduct of one's life. But when coupled with <i>" I am also about as orthodox and a reactionary ultramontane Theist as you will likely find"</i> it simply bespeaks of the classic and archetypal psychological/psychoanalytic pathology of "Compartmentalisation". <br /><br /><i>"Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves... [it] allows these conflicting ideas to co-exist by inhibiting direct or explicit acknowledgement and interaction between separate compartmentalized self states."</i>Wiki<br /><br />A correlated and emergent secondary mechanism identified with psychological compartmentalization is a state of denial of that dissonance. It is as if the corpus callosum that divides the cerebrum into left and right hemispheres has been dissevered. <br /><br />Might know more physics than 99.9% of the world's population, but is profoundly pig ignorant in the sciences of biology, physiology, psychology, and the broader field of the neurosciences.<br /><br />I say, a turkey with a PhD is still a turkey.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41283178377640364032014-12-02T16:52:08.355-07:002014-12-02T16:52:08.355-07:00John: Does being in the universe mean having a par...John: Does being in the universe mean having a particular location in space and time? Is that sufficient for naturalness? Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16457170823663131432014-12-02T15:46:33.419-07:002014-12-02T15:46:33.419-07:00as nerds would know.
Indeed, for in Dungeons and ...<i>as nerds would know.</i><br /><br />Indeed, for in Dungeons and Dragons, the warlockâs abilities cannot be described as being the contingent result of blind processes, but the sorcerer's abilities can!WMFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11251276221914401560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82992528719221217652014-12-02T13:37:33.663-07:002014-12-02T13:37:33.663-07:00And the people who love to throw that quote in my ...And the people who love to throw that quote in my face completely ignore the reason I said it. They always leave out the relevant context. <br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28325279173019547162014-12-02T13:32:58.532-07:002014-12-02T13:32:58.532-07:00@im-skeptical:
"Incidentally, grodrigues, in...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"Incidentally, grodrigues, in that discussion between you and Illion that I mentioned, he didn't know what he was talking about (as usual), and you showed him the correct mathematical answer. That is a courtesy you would never extend to someone like me. I was not making an appeal to your authority. I was comparing two different situations, each one involving someone who thinks he's a master of logic, but actually doesn't know what he is talking about."<br /><br />I always loved this quote from you to me in <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.pt/2013/11/steve-lovells-analysis-of-afr.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> (November 25, 2013 7:54 PM) as summarizing everything quite clearly:<br /><br />"Maybe I do have it all wrong. But you'll never convince me of that."grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12552778412871854622014-12-02T13:03:30.732-07:002014-12-02T13:03:30.732-07:00Skep just can't resist putting his damn foot i...Skep just can't resist putting his damn foot in his mouth, can he?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.com