Comments on the Supernatural

By Oskar

After around twenty failed attempts to write articles for this blog, I have decided to compile a series of my better paragraphs that can be understood alone, but I feel lend strength to one and other. Most of them are comments on the debate over the existance of the supernatural that has been continually re-raised by Reuben. While I am on that topic, I should mention that I think we should change our sub-heading, as little actual thinking seems to be going on on either side of said debate. This, I feel is a hypocritical situation, given that most of our contributions come from Reuben, supposed champion against political rhetoric. I also feel it is a bit condescending, I personally do not feel qualified to teach anyone as a superior and am equally open to and expectant of, learning from my discussions with those critical of my thoughts.

Essentially what has been repeatedly said during our discussions is that some of us think we know what we currently can’t know , while others think we don’t know what we currently can’t know (thought I’d better express it in clear English). I put myself in the latter category because I make an initial assumption that, while it is impossible to confirm something (with the possible exclusion of some mathematics [I'm up for debate on this]), we should include the most probable scenario, based on our observations of the world, as part of our working model. While this assumption is unfounded, it removes the need to assume a host of other things, so I’m going to stick with it.

Simply claiming that there are things we don’t know is a perfectly valid, even a constructive, thing to do. Claiming, on the other hand, that YOU know what others don’t, should only be done when you have some kind of evidence that makes the probability of your thoughts outweigh the probability of existing thoughts. This is not always a clear cut case, but the most dramatic shifts in our thinking are often accompanied by clear cut changes in evidence.

Claiming that things exist “beyond the material world”, is something that is difficult to substantiate with evidence (keep your eyes peeled for an upcoming article I am writing about how this might even be a paradoxical claim). The person who has come closest to the mark in doing this is, in my opinion, Plato. With this in mind I would like to suggest that any attempts to make this claim could be substantiated by speculative philosophy (still, no philosopher has really gone beyond Plato, in this respect, in the past 2400 years, so good luck with that).

I believe both sides of this argument have made repeated reference to some kind of Darwinian evolution as evidence. I feel this is quite out of place, as that is not a debate on how present biodiversity has occurred, but on the existance or lack of, of the supernatural. This is a common mistake in debates on the existence of a god, because it is often used as evidence against a literal interpretation of the bible, but it is quite removed from the supernatural debate (evolution would not be disproved if the animals being selected for and against had souls or experienced reincarnation, or if they coexisted with any number of supernatural beings). This is accepted by most theists as well and groups such as the Vatican and the church of England have made it clear that they are no longer in conflict with evolutionists.

At one stage during the heated debate in the previous post, Sanders said “we have never seen an ape change into a human”. Indeed this is true in both its literal meaning, and the meaning I believe it is clear he was intending it to have. Like all things in science, we cannot actually prove that Darwinian evolution occurs. There is certainly a very high probability of this being the way biodiversity has occurred, given current evidence, but we have no confirmation that new evidence will not arise. Like our judicial system, we must base what we accept as our reality on evidence we have available to us that proves something ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

I feel that another point that has repeatedly been causing confusion in these discussions is the idea that logic and evidence will always agree. I believe (and history has shown) that this is not always the case. If I was to base an argument on my own assumptions, I would say that logic is, at least in part. based on our observations (in everyday situations). If we come across a non-everyday situation, the evidence we encounter may not follow our logic. Quantum undeterminism springs to mind as an example. On the other hand, logically applied reason can extend beyond our current evidence based theories and provide answers to questions yet to be evidentially confirmed, or even tried. A successful example of this is the other pillar of modern physics, Einstein’s relativity. A less successful example of applied logic is Xeno’s paradox (I know the paradox is actually based on flawed logic, but I have included it anyway because we do make wrong assumptions in our logical reasoning sometimes).

It should be noted that in the above paragraph I have used the word logic to mean something probably closer to common sense than some definitions of logic.

So there you have it.  A collection of my thoughts on the supernatural and our debate about it. Please debate, disregard, disprove, reinforce and force me to modify them as you like.

Oskar

Awesome Anecdote

By Reuben.

I know you’re all probably very sick of me bantering on about Christian fundamentalists, but I just have to share this little anecdote from one:

This past spring I was expelled from my high school. Why? Because I’m a Christian. There was a girl in my class who was wiccan, and I didn’t want demons to possess me or anyone else and save her from satan. So, I told her that her faith was evil and told her to accept Jesus as Savior and she would be saved. Simple as that. Just say the sinners prayer and you can be saved!
Well I got sent to the principal for that. She said I was ‘discriminating’ against her religion. I was only doing what the Bible, God, Jesus and my pastor said! How is that wrong!?
Well, afterwards I was forced to aplologize, even though it’s a sin to, so I never meant what I said. So, instead I put a copy of a Jack Chick tract in her locker about how wicca and a paganism lead to murder, rape and other horrible things because it lets the devil get inside of you. I also left a little note about how she was going to hell. I was hoping she would see the error of her ways and repent from the evil, disgusting ‘religion’.
Instead I was called down to the principal again and this time there were two police officers there. And they said I was under arrest for harrasing this girl and threatening her! What did I do? I just wanted her to accept Jesus and be saved! Now her family (all evil, stupid, disgusting god hating wiccans) want to sue me for discrimination and creating a hostile workplace! How is that fair? She’s the one who’s discriminating against me because I’m one with the LORD!
Jesus is the only way to salvation! It’s that simple people! No pope, wicca, or anything stupid like that! JESUS ONLY! Why is is wrong to tell others that? It’s all the fault of the ACLU and simlar atheist organizations trying to destroy us Christians. Next they’ll want to genocide us for doing our Godly work.

Then, for the token intellectual gesture, I ask of you: does the intrinsic nature of religion harbour such madness?

A young Absolutist

By Reuben.

Recently, there has been much discussion on religious fundamentalists. One particular fundamentalist, fourteen-year old Jonathon Krohn, has been hogging the Republican limelight of late with the release of his new book, ‘Defining Conservatism’. The guy has a blog too. And this is what I found:

Conservatism is not a viewpoint for wimps. Conservatism is a viewpoint of hardcore values. We cannot give into the sway of moderate views. This ideology, lack there of, is creeping into the ideological camps of both Liberalism and Conservatism. We must not give into the ideological pressure of moderates and, thereby, dilute our viewpoint. A watered down version of Conservatism does not inspire the same flame as the viewpoint itself, in its entirety. A Conservative revolution is impossible, unless Conservatism is left intact. An influx of moderate views into the Conservative camp can only be destructive of Conservatism, and will only contribute to creating a bleaker future for the Conservative movement. In sum, Conservatives must stick to their values, and never change those values. Conservatism is Conservatism, and it must not be changed by moderate views.

Conservatism might as well be a synonym for religious extremism, if this particular pre-pubescent is to be trusted in his lurid definitions of ‘conservatism’. It’s scary that, at such a young – and highly impressionable – age, he’s already on the path to Absolutism. It wouldn’t be naive to suggest that pious religion thrives in such mindsets.

Christian Coalition of America

By Reuben.

For those of you who have had the misfortune of living in a nation where bigoted, racist, backwards, religious imbeciles actually wield political clout, I must express some sympathy. They exist; and there’s many of them. But one of the most powerful ones yet is the Christian Coalition of America which does exactly what it says on the tin: preach a dogma of irrational superstition whilst undermine attempts to establish a rational and fair social and economic policy.

A quick scan through their site reveals some self-parodying nuggets of comedy GOLD. Have a look at this quote:

We support the nomination and confirmation of judges that will uphold and apply the Constitution as it was originally written by our Founding Fathers – not seek to re-write it to their own ideological ends, or make law from the bench.

Isn’t that just awesomely ironic? It is well-established that the Founding Fathers, whilst subscribing to the religious dogma of their times, were avowedly secular when it came to politics. Freedom and liberties are not – in any way, shape or form – synonymous with religion, least of all Christianity. Anyway, let’s have another tentative peak at these true fundamentalists:

It seems to me that, if we’re going to have “tolerance” in this country, then there also has to be “tolerance” for the views of the majority, (as in, the people of over 30 states and counting that have passed amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman).

Did you hear that? Being tolerant of minority views automatically means majority views are supplanted. Apparently, it’s completely justified that same sex marriage be banned on the whims of the majority’s views. Well…a sizeable portion think there should be some legislation protecting queers from discrimination. But that’s not the point. If we were to justify a policy based solely on its popularity, then we might as well justify it on the basis of whether or not I like Blueberry flavored ice-cream or not; it’s not relevant to the policy in question. But that doesn’t stop America’s finest minds from airing out the sock drawer:

The problem is that once you permit the gay people to marry, you are showing our children that it is perfectly ok to be gay, and some children that would otherwise straighten out will end up being gay.

That was from a CBS Poll and forum, not a Christian group. I suppose that would tend to fit in with the results of the Prop. 8 legislation which saw queers stripped of their rights and their dignity and shunned by a state whose population is more than twice the size of Australia’s: California. And they’re supposedly a ’secular’ state’.

The Christian Coalition of America's website is about as sophisticated as the local work-experience kid would have allowed it...

So, to end off, I should ask you: Are these idiots fundamentalists? Should the term ‘fundamentalism’ apply only to a minority view? It’s important to realise that most Americans actually think the removal of such liberties is rational and fair policy.

Determinism and Faith

(Nat)

I propose that an individual cannot be held accountable for their beliefs.

This is because beliefs are typically formed by outside influences beyond the control of the individual; whether dictated by fate or a God or by sheer dumb luck, it is beyond their control. Firstly, though, are my thoughts on belief:

The system of belief – whether it is in God, Allah, Buddha, magic, physics or whatever else – is primarily a tool for the individual to connect to reality in a way where he or she may gain some knowledge over it. To do these through study is the most common method, and the most socially acceptable. To come to your own opinions through your own channels, without first referencing the ‘facts’, is a heresy not much appreciated.

That’s because while the primary nature of beliefs is to support that illusion of control, the secondary nature is another, more insidious trick; to act as a metaphor representing just how the universe works. This is an illusion that drives many seemingly mad, desperate to commit horrible acts in the name of whatever faith they belong to, theistic or otherwise… and it is, naturally, the same illusion that drives fundamentalism. This is reality without studying, without wisdom: this is why the heresy is not appreciated by many.

But these people can’t help it. They are a product of their environment. The Catholic, for example, may derive their beliefs from a much earlier experience: a close relative was very sick, and they prayed as hard as they could, and the relative got better. This is a miracle in the subjective eyes of the Catholic. Regardless of whether or not it was a coincidence, it is interpreted using the Catholicism model as a miracle. A physicist, then, has the luxury of seeing physical results of his reality-tunnel; but these are no more (and no less) convincing then the experiences held by the Catholic. Two models can intersect, naturally, but they clash much more often.

Anyway – enough from me. What do you think?

A challenge to the scientific method

By Reuben.

From a random discussion on Facebook comes a rather interesting comment:

I’m not arguing against science or the scientific method at all. In fact, I wasn’t even espousing a particular worldview or religious dogma. My point was simply that Scientism as a worldview is incoherent. This is because Scientism maintains that the ONLY knowledge which is valid comes from the scientific method. But how do they arrive at that conclusion? Using the scientific method? The scientific method cannot be its own justification. Proponents of Scientism are making a metaphysical and epistemological declaration which cannot be arrived at empirically. That was my only point. The same problem holds for Logical Positivism which states that the only meaningful statements are those which are scientific in nature. But that is not itself a scientific statement, but one of abstract reason.

Discuss.