Talk:Supernatural

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives
  1. Supernaturalization 1 (May 2003)
  2. Supernaturalization 2 (May 2003)
  3. Creeping supernaturalization (May 2003)
  4. July 2002 – June 2003
  5. June 2003 – June 2004


This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] NPOV policy and proofs

NPOV says scientific and mathematical proofs are far more universally accepted than supernatural ones, from which it follows that scientific and mathematical proofs are more powerful than supernatural ones (for whatever reason). You and Wesley will agree that the proofs for "Jesus Christ is the son of God" (rejected by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc) are far less universally accepted than the proofs for "pi is irrational" and "the earth is spherical" (accepted by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc). Different people and different cultures find different sorts of proofs convincing. If different people and different cultures find different proofs convincing, then Pythagoras's theorem (as we call it) would not have convinced the very different people and cultures of Europe, India, China, etc for the past 2500+ years. But it has. And I'd still like to see a similarly spectacular modern equivalent of Elijah's miracle. Please add it to the Wikipedia if it isn't already here. Our Lady of Fatima is, but I presume that doesn't convince you either. This is my suggested NPOV addition to the article or one of its offshoots:

[edit] Supernaturalism and Proof

Many supernaturalists assert that it is possible to prove certain facts about the supernatural to a very high degree of certainty or even with perfect certainty. However, different supernaturalist groups have proofs that contradict: even within the single religion of Christianity, although different groups will agree that infallible supernatural proof is possible, they will then use their infallible supernatural proofs to reach contradictory supernatural conclusions. Some Catholics, for example, claim that papal infallibility can be proved beyond doubt; some Protestants and Orthodox Christians that it can be disproved beyond doubt. Within the religious family known as the Abrahamic religions, Muslims, Jews, and Christians all agree that some supernatural facts can be proved beyond doubt, and then disagree about what those supernatural facts are. It is apparent, therefore, that proof within supernaturalism is of a different order to proof within mathematics and naturalistic science. In mathematics, proofs can be established permanently and universally and once established are accepted by all mathematicians throughout the world, regardless of race, ethnicity, and culture (see for example Pythagorean theorem). In science, the strength of a proof is proportional to the strength of the evidence put forward for it, and the strongest proofs are again accepted by all or a vast majority of scientists throughout the world, regardless of race, ethnicity, and culture (see for example the winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics). Because no single supernatural proof has ever been accepted universally across racial, ethnic, and cultural boundaries in the way many thousands of mathematical and scientific proofs have been, many skeptics, some of whom nevertheless accept the existence of the supernatural, would therefore argue that proof is impossible within supernaturalism. Some skeptical supernaturalists, such as Unitarians and adherents of process theology, further argue that God could not allow certain knowledge of his existence, nature, and purposes, because certain knowledge would remove the need for believers to exercise their free will and individual judgment.

NPOV says scientific and mathematical proofs are far more universally accepted than supernatural ones, — J. Jacquerie, You continue to say this as though it means something important, but it it's not a clear statement. By trying to use this article (and a few others) to explain yourself, you are risking turning this into even more about you and your views. The paragraph you are proposing is more puff. Mkmcconn 14:10 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Proof of Supernaturalism

This Wikipedia entry is fascinating proof of the supernatural. An extension of these very profound proofs exist in regard to the Tunguska Event. which should be included in the article and made available for the cognitive Wikipedia audience. It makes it very difficult to be NPOV in regard to supernaturalism.

[edit] Most people believe in some form of supernaturalism

Most people and cultures believe in some form of supernaturalism; it is far more universally accepted than atheism and materialism. Your statements about papal infallibility reflect a deep misunderstanding of this debate; that question is not something Christians try to prove or disprove, it is a dispute about the tradition of the Church has always been; it's primarily an historical and doctrinal question. Mathematicians and scientists also disagree with each other about specific questions. Someone makes a new discovery or proposes a new formula or theorem, and it takes a while before everyone or most people accept it. I still remember when my high school physics teacher announced that a recent discovery made on a space shuttle mission meant that all the high school physics textbooks would need to be rewritten. I also recall an astronomer vigorously disputing the distance of quasars from us, though he was in the minority. Things aren't as cut and dry as you suggest. Wesley 16:21 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your statements about papal infallibility reflect a deep misunderstanding of this debate; that question is not something Christians try to prove or disprove, it is a dispute about the tradition of the Church has always been; it's primarily an historical and doctrinal question. A dispute between churches that is primarily an historical and doctrinal question. There's a rara avis. Try these simple steps: 1) follow the link you provided to papal infallibility and find External Links; 2) Follow the external link "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility - historical treatment"; 3) Scroll down the page till you come to the heading: "PROOF OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE", where you'll read:
From Holy Scripture, as already stated, the special proof of the pope's infallibility is, if anything, stronger and clearer than the general proof of the infallibility of the Church as a whole, just as the proof of his primacy is stronger and clearer than any proof that can be advanced independently for the Apostolic authority of the episcopate.
4) Finally, scroll down the page a little more until you come to the heading "PROOF OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY FROM TRADITION". But according to you "that question is not something Christians try to prove or disprove". And your statements about atheism and materialism reflect a deep misunderstanding of this debate: science entails neither atheism or materialism, but I understand why you introduced them ex nihilo. I won't bother responding to the rest. Jacquerie27 22:32 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the Roman Catholic proof of papal infallibility; clearly I was mistaken in that point. The reason I introduced atheism and materialism is that they both appear to be very natural and direct consequences of your POV, that science can make no allowance for anything supernatural. Perhaps I should have used the word "naturalism" instead. The point is that many people the world over do accept a number of scientific and mathematical axioms as being true, while also believing in some kind of supernatural being(s) or activities. Wesley 16:18 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well, if you don't know much about Catholicism it's understandable you hadn't come across that. ...very natural and direct consequences of your POV, that science can make no allowance for anything supernatural. It's not my POV: it's science. Atheism and materialism claim to account for everything; science doesn't (yet). The point is that many people the world over do accept a number of scientific and mathematical axioms as being true, while also believing in some kind of supernatural being(s) or activities. Yes, but my point is that they accept different and contradictory supernatural proofs but the same scientific and mathematical proofs. Science and mathematics are genuinely catholic; Catholicism, like all other forms of supernaturalism, isn't. Jacquerie27 21:53 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Scientists counter that if this is so, then believers in supernaturalism themselves would be utterly incapable of witnessing any supernatural phenomenon or miracles; all human senses are limited by the laws of physics, and can only sense events occuring in the natural, physical world.

I think this is POV and should be cut: if supernature exists it could interfere or interact with the laws of physics and the natural world, which are not perfectly known and not necessarily fixed; second, supernature wouldn't necessarily have to act thru the human senses in any case: it could affect the brain or mind directly. Jacquerie27 21:53 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can I change 'Arguments in favour of supernaturality' to 'Arguments in favour of the existance of the supernatural', as the same for against?

[edit] Many scientists and mathematicians

I keep on bumping into scientists who particularly suffer from the preconception that science reveals objective truth. Never mind. If you think it is defensive or offensive, remove the comment. (20040302 13:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC))

[edit] Removed paragraphs

I just removed the following paragraphs, because they are about the social causes of religious persecution. They are quite off-topic for an article on the supernatural. Most books on the Christian religion don't discuss the supernatural in general, and most books on the supernatural nenever even allude to this topic. This discussion's presence here is more a cause of the personal interests of contributors, but probably not a good editorial placing. If you want, we can move these paragraphs to an appropriate article. We can always mention this subject within this article, and link to the article where this topic is more appropriately discussed. RK

  • Because the truth of supernatural claims cannot be objectively tested, disputes about them often lead to schism and persecution. The philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed this out in his essay "An outline of Intellectual Rubbish":
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.
  • Examples:
    • The Great Schisms among Christians were the culmination of centuries of disagreement concerning the powers of the Pope to decide doctrine. No objective standard for resolving these differences has been agreed upon, then or since. It may be argued, then, that only the abandonment of the competing supernatural claims can possibly lead to the resolution of differences.
    • The Thirty Years War was justified as a defense of inviolable privileges granted by God to the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Emperor, over against the Protestant claims of God's grant of the rights of nations and of self-government according to the Bible.
    • For centuries, Christians angered and frustrated by the refusal of Jews to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah have considered the Jews to be especially guilty of the crucifixion of Christ, cursed and deserving of suffering (see deicide). Other folk-religious beliefs about alliances between the Jews and Satan, and similar terrifying conspiracy theories, have fueled hatred and cruelty toward the Jewish people, and have produced a special indifference to Jewish suffering.

[edit] Arguments in favor of supernaturality

There are currently eight "arguments against supernaturality" and four counter-arguments ("arguments in favour of supernaturality"), yet two of the latter include counter-counter-arguments! This is hardly fair, so I have removed the counter-counter arguments.

In the last "argument in favor" I have corrected some of the information and removed redundancy.
Philip J. Rayment 14:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We usually don't remove text from an article to create balance. The Wikipedia way is generally to add text to maintain balance. Otherwise our articles are trimmed, and then trimmed again, and then trimmed again.... In this case we find many arguments against supernaturalism, but few for it. I would think the proper response would be too add more arguments for belief in the supernatural, if any more arguments actually exist. RK 00:29, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

ghosts are true cause i saw a ghost doing a ghost poo

Thank you for that observation, but Wikipedia has a firm policy against original research, so I doubt we can add that to the article. JRM · Talk 10:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice.

[edit] Seeking expert eyes on Natasha Demkina

Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.

Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.

TIA, - Keith D. Tyler 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments Against

The last paragraph stated that believing in supernatural explanations for burning bushes is lazy. I changed it, but it's my opinion it's still a bit lousy. So if anyone cares to look at it, it could use a better NPOV explanation of how science deals with seemingly supernatural phenomena. 71.10.236.201 21:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up a bit; not sure if it's an improvement. Noclevername 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could be more constructive than just tossing stones at this, but...this is really bad! Is it just me, or does the whole article read like an atheist having an argument with a strawman of his own creation? Don't they have Internet forums for that sort of stuff? Some of it is just laughable; "Scientists say..." What scientists? It looks like someone was just making it up as they went along. Perhaps a more appropriate title for this would be; "Strawman Arguments in Favour of Atheism".

Steve Lowther 08:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Possibly unintentional) Vandalism

Somebody is editing the Supernatural page and insisting on inserting long, unwieldy, opinionated, and misspelled paragraphs about science and its virtues. While science is indeed a wonderful subject to bring into this page, you needn't vent your worship of it here; and if you must, please at least do so concisely and with good spelling. -RSR 11-06-06 02:42 PM MST

[edit] Basic Definition of "Supernatural"

The opening paragraph of this Wikipedia entry states that:

"The supernatural (Latin: super- "exceeding" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are not observable in nature, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. If a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it can no longer be considered supernatural"

This is quite obviously untrue. Let's pretend for a minute that poltergeists exist, and one day you see one. Since you have just observed a ghost, does that imply by definition that ghosts are a natural phenomenon, rather than a supernatural one?

This appears to leave us with quite an unhelpful definition of the term "supernatural" (one that appears to reflect instead Kant's distinction between the Phenomenal and the Noumenal).

Traditionally, the term "supernatural" has been used to describe things that may well be observable in nature, but which have causes that lie outside the natural order.

This is a good point and well points out what happens when one confuses the phenomenon with the explanation. All cases of purported supernatural events are natural events that are explained using supernatural constructs. Such supernatural constructs are claimed to have properties that are a-priori beyond the natural. However this does not preclude that for those same purported supernatural events that completely natural explanations could also account for the phenomenon. In the end it boils down to which explanation one prefers and what is the criterion being used to choose. The supernaturalist usually prefers the supernatural explanation not because of how well it explains the phenomena and predicts future phenomena of its kind but usually by how well that supernatural explanation makes them feel. In the end this is the difference between a naturalist and a supernaturalist. Scratch any supernaturalist and their reasons for preferring such explanations is based on the "joy" it brings them. Gkochanowsky 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Rename

Do any of you perhaps think that this article might be renamed 'The supernatural'? The reason I say this is that when you say, 'Supernatural,' you generally mean the adjective. The noun form is almost always (I believe) indicated by adding a definite article in front, thus, 'The supernatural'. It seems to make more sense to me. Thanks for considering, Vlmastra 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why argue?

Supernatural things can't be explained. Why argue?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.41.119 (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Some folk's laziness and low IQs regarding their not knowing nor not caring what their talking about can be explained. Andrew Homer 07:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't insult that poster. Pity him if you must, but in a civil way. (they're, not their) Noclevername 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
And your point is...? If it is unexplained, then they are right in asserting a mystery. mike4ty4 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ????

I can't make heads or tails of the last paragraph under "Arguments against"; It seems to be saying that if you hold one supernatural belief, but don't believe all of them, then that somehow proves them all automatically false. WhaHuh?? What kind of twisted pseudologic is that? I'd have an easier time believing in the supernatural than in that conclusion. To whoever wrote that mess, as a rational skeptic, I beg of you: please don't be on our side. That was painful to read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noclevername (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

It's gotten bigger and wordier, but no clearer. Noclevername 04:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that but it was intended to show that most supernaturalists hold their supernatural beliefs dishonestly. It makes no attempt nor does it claim to "prove" that supernaturalism is not the "Truth". As such it is an argument against supernaturalism at least for those that try to be honest. For others that do not endeavor to be honest in their "beliefs" if not their thinking I can see where it might be very confusing. Gkochanowsky 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/p/Talk%7ESupernatural_4acf.html"