Talk:Supernatural/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This discussion was the talk page for Creeping supernaturalization, a title that was discarded and now redirects to Supernatural.

---

This term does not appear in Google's database: could you give a cite for this topic, please?

It's a term I've invented myself to mean gradual supernaturalization, e.g. of Christian beliefs. The full article will explain things properly. Jacquerie27 17:39 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

One wikipedia policy is that articles should be enclopedic, rather than idiosyncratic: is this a concept that is generally well known, or well discussed?

Could we have an article on supernaturalization or just supernaturalism first, please?

Encyclopedia articles should not be about terms one of us hve invented. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal diary. Slrubenstein

That's okay then: I wouldn't write about creeping supernaturalization in a personal diary. Jacquerie27 18:12 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

In my field, the passive voice is usually a sign that something is wrong. The article opens by saying that creeping supernaturalism is a term "used to" discuss a particular phenomenon. Used by whom? I tried th phrase out on google and got nothing.

Perhpas the article is describing an important phenomena. But as an encyclopedia, we need to use terms as they are used by scholars or by the general public, and we need to be clear about who uses what term. Slrubenstein

I also have problems with the use of the word hypothesis, which is appopriate for the experimental sciences but not really applicable to the interpretive humanities, such as history. There is no need for a hypothesis -- we have a vast amount of material on the NT and the history of Christianity and are in a good position to make generalizations about trends -- but these generalizations should be based on the available data. Now, how will you "falisfy" a hypothesis except by going back to the very data you should have consulted to form your generalization? This seems circular. If an historian has made an argument about the history of Christianity, fine. By the way, the general argument here seems consistent with what I have read about the history of Christianity. But I have seen no one suggest this as a hypothesis, nor have I seen anyone use the term "creeping supernaturalism." It sounds like very sloppy history to me. Slrubenstein

Yes, if we were testing a hypothesis in chemistry or physics, it would be possible to set up a controlled experiment that someone else could repeat to verify the results. You can't do that with history.

But you can set hypotheses that are falsifiable.

In particular, the present article ignores the possibility of either an oral gospel that predates any of the manuscripts, or other manuscripts or letters lost to us that might indicate that specific ideas actually originated earlier.

The article isn't finished yet, but that possibility is certainly a good argument against the supernatural. If such important documents were lost, it suggests Christian texts was not under divine protection. And of course there was an oral "gospel" proceeding the mss: the gospels weren't written while Christ lived.

But the more important point is that wikipedia should document work that has already been done, not publish someone's new speculation.

This isn't new speculation -- the term is new, not the ideas. Jacquerie27 07:55 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

This is not a vanity press or soapbox. (and I say that to remind myself as well.) The fact that a quick read of this article makes me think it needs a "rebuttal" suggests that it's far removed from being NPOV.

Please do provide a "rebuttal", tho' I'd prefer it went after what I've written. Jacquerie27 07:55 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Wesley 05:38 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia's general convention for maintaining NPOV on controversial subjects is generally to: (a) attribute opinions and interpretations to identifiable people or groups, rather than as the article's or wikipedia's opinion or interpretation; (b) to present contrasting ideas side by side throughout the article, rather than in extended argument followed by extended rebuttal format. No one writer "owns" any piece of text on wikipedia. Wesley 15:46 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

This article needs to be balanced and merged with supernaturalization, all instances of the term "creeping supernaturalization" need to be removed. Jacuqerie27, please read about NPOV -- the article as is does not comply with Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not a place to publicize new hypotheses, viewpoints need to be properly attributed. --Eloquence 16:03 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

I think it should be put in Supernaturalization in the New Testament. The title was meant to be an attention-grabbing way of referring to an old hypothesis, not a new one, but I accept it should be changed. Jacquerie27 17:12 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

I reject your current proposal about an article on "supernaturalization."

Are you speaking ex cathedra?

You are not presenting a hypothesis, nor are you presenting an interesting article.

I'm interested to know what test you have applied to conclude it is not interesting, as absolute, objective fact. Ratio of verbs to adjectives?

All of what you have written so far amounts to nothing more than this claim: "The Bible can be studied critically."

"The Bible can be studied critically" is a general statement. This is a specific example of critical study of the Bible:

Mark's earlier νεανισκος, neaniskos, or "young man", becomes Luke's later ανδρες δυο εν εσθησεσιν αστραπτουσαις, andres duo en esthesesin astraptousais, or "two men in shining garments" and Matthew's αγγελος, aggelos, or "angel" descending from heaven.'

Can you tell me how that amounts to "nothing more" than the general claim? That is, how replacing that with the general claim loses nothing of significance?

This is by no means a controversial claim, and it needs practically no defense. What would be of value is an article on critical scholarship of the Bible, and the inclusion of the conclusions of critical scholarship on the history of Christianity in the appropriate articles. In fact, this has already been done by many others, as Wesley points out.

Can you tell where someone has studied the change of Greek vocabulary from the resurrection narrative in Mark to the r.n. in Matthew and Luke? If someone has, I apologize for not coming it across when I looked.

Please get a sense of what has been done on wikipedia, as well as how things should be done, before trying to use this as your own soap-box. Slrubenstein

Fine: I apologize for not doing so and I apologize for trying to use this as my own soapbox, also. Please delete the article whenever the spirit moves you. Jacquerie27 18:16 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Apology accepted -- but as I wrote earlier, it is clear that you have done some research and can make a real contribution to wikipedia. I won't delete it yet, so as to give you a few days to look at other articles on the Bible or Christianity and see if you can cut and paste any of what you wrote here into those articles. Slrubenstein

IMO Jacquerie27 does a good job of presenting critical/skeptical arguments, and this article is no exception to that evaluation. Admittedly, the articles consistently beg for a rebuttal (which tends to produce weak, unreadable articles). However, many of them share a common orbit. Most of them describe alternative, naturalistic interpretations of religious topics, of Christianity in particular, and especially of the New Testament. Can they be organized in a way that labels them for what they are, and in that way keep them: essays presenting arguments skeptical of Christian theism? Can this be done without ghettoizing the articles? Although I am far from agreeing with these essays, I think that they are informative and well-written presentations, and in general they show an uncommon degree of fair-mindedness despite clear disclosure of the author's opinions. Mkmcconn

I don't disagree with your assessment, but I don't think wikipedia is the place for essays. The one group of unabashed essays we have that I know of is LMS's college lectures, and he'll be the first to tell you that his essays ought to be NPOV'd and wikified. Most wikipedians I've run across agree. The reason they're still there in mostly original form is that no one has taken time to do the work on them. Wikipedia is about encyclopedia articles, not essays. Even if the articles on subjects like this turn out to be rather weak as a result. NPOV writing will generally be a lot more bland than a strong POV presentation; those strong POV presentations still need to be off site and linked to from wikipedia in the External Links section at the end. Wesley 17:35 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

This article is highly idiosyncratic, and contains a mish-mosh of barely-related subjects. This encyclopedia article is a free-form brainstorm on their personal views of the Bible and religion. If someone wants to write a coherent article on critical analysis of the Bible, that is fine; if someone wants to present a humanist perspective on religion and supersition, that is also fine. But this current article is so unfocused (and incoherently titled) that it is useless. I would reccomend getting some kind of focus, and then moving content to an appropriately titled article. This current article should be deleted. RK