Super natural events

[questian]

Supernatural events fall into two categories. They are either speculative (unobservable) or illusory (explainable after the fact). For example, the existence of life on Mars is speculative because to date no one has been able to produce any legitimate evidence of it. The miracle of the Red Sea crossing was illusory in that it appeared to go against the laws of nature, but research has since show the presence of an underwater landbridge that may have been briefly exposed by an earthquake causing a sudden drop in sea level. Many events have initially been regarded as supernatural, but upon further inquiry, are found to be either elaborate hoaxes or explainable in scientific terms. For a better understanding, read "Why People Believe Weird Things - Pseudoscience, Superstition & Other Confusions of Our Time" by Michael Shermer.

Here's a summary of the question Why DO people believe weird things? (pp. 275-278):
A. Credo consolans: I believe because it consols me.
B. Simplicity: Pseudoscientific beliefs are simpler and easier to understand than scientific ones.
C. Immediacy: Pseudoscience offers immediate gratification and hope.
D. Morality and Meaning: Science does not offer moral messages and answers to our questions about the meaning of our existence. Superstitions give us answers to these ultimate questions.
E. Hope Springs Eternal: ALL humans, skeptics and scientists included, look to the future for a better life and world, and the siren song of pseudoscience and superstition is hard to resist.


"There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known."

[jhamrick]

Would you then say everything is explainable by nature and science?

[questian]

I can't say that today, but I imagine at some point in the future, that could be the case.

[jhamrick]

Just curious, because scientists seem to constantly change their minds. They believe one thing today, come to a "deeper understanding" the next, and then go back to the same point later.

Do you honestly believe that in a hundred years scientests are still going to be going on the same truths that they hold to now?
That hasn't been the way they've done it throughout history. They are gonna claim that they know more now, but in another hundred years they will laugh at these ideas too.

You exercise a great deal of faith by believing in these things.

[smugg]

Originally posted by jhamrick
Just curious, because scientists seem to constantly change their minds. They believe one thing today, come to a "deeper understanding" the next, and then go back to the same point later.

Do you honestly believe that in a hundred years scientests are still going to be going on the same truths that they hold to now?
That hasn't been the way they've done it throughout history. They are gonna claim that they know more now, but in another hundred years they will laugh at these ideas too.

You exercise a great deal of faith by believing in these things.

So what scientific ideas do they laugh at today? Heliocentric solar system? Newtonian physics? Both of these disciplines have been refined over the years but no one would say they were bad science. Good science is good science even when it's incomplete.

The thing is, any scientist who uses the word belief in the way you do about his research is not doing good science. You aren't allowed to believe in a scientific theory -- it must be questioned and tested and ideas which aren't verified (and those which aren't falsifiable) are discarded.

Our understanding of the nature of the universe doesn't randomly change over time at the whim of the scientific community; it is developed over time and new data often changes things. Our understanding is becoming more complete, not less, even if it will never truly be complete.

It has nothing to do with faith. This may be difficult for some people to understand because many modern scientific concepts are very complicated and they rely on much in the way of previous research.

This is the problem with supernatural events (and the reason they are called that): none of them hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Here's a site devoted to this topic if anyone's interested:
James Randi Educational Foundation

[questian]

JH,
You misunderstand the scientific process. The whole idea is that there is no fixed, absolute knowledge in the universe. Theories are proved based on the current body of evidence and refined as new information comes available. Isaac Newton first proposed the idea of gravitation and proved it through experimentation. Today's scientist have built up their knowledge that reinforces it even more than in Newton's time. As far as I know, gravity has not been rejected by science because no new evidence has presented itself that points to another force or explanation. It is quite possible that if someone discovers a mysterious force that better explains why two bodies is space are attracted to one another, gravity would be relegated to the myth heap along with alchemy and fire-breathing dragons.

Victor Gijsbers puts it this way,

"An athiest who holds the strong position claims that since there has not yet been found any evidence for God, it is reasonable to say that no gods exist. But should evidence for God be found, the 'strong' athiest could become a theist just a quickly as a 'weak' athiest could."

Others argue that "after a while the lack of positive evidence becomes pretty strong negative evidence in itself." Michael Martin describes how someone can scour the entire room for a missing pair of glasses, and eventually decide that they are not in the room.

(Introduction to Activistic Athiesm by Cliff Walker, 1999)
http://www.positiveatheism.org/index.shtml

[jhamrick]

Science doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

The world is flat, the earth is the center of the universe?

What, those scientists weren't as informed as us? My point exactly.

The science that you so dearly cling to will at some point in the future be scoffed at. If you don't believe that you are naive, and I don't think you are, smugg.

Scientific understanding is incomplete, therefore, to believe in those things does require a measure of faith.

Like it or not, your life is full of faith. You just for whatever reason, have not chosen to place that faith in God.

[jhamrick]

JH,
You misunderstand the scientific process. The whole idea is that there is no fixed, absolute knowledge in the universe. Theories are proved based on the current body of evidence and refined as new information comes available. Isaac Newton first proposed the idea of gravitation and proved it through experimentation. Today's scientist have built up their knowledge that reinforces it even more than in Newton's time. As far as I know, gravity has not been rejected by science because no new evidence has presented itself that points to another force or explanation. It is quite possible that if someone discovers a mysterious force that better explains why two bodies is space are attracted to one another, gravity would be relegated to the myth heap along with alchemy and fire-breathing dragons.


In this case, you must believe in A god, because there is to much evidence that points to one, and not enough evidence to disprove the existence of one.

"An athiest who holds the strong position claims that since there has not yet been found any evidence for God, it is reasonable to say that no gods exist. But should evidence for God be found, the 'strong' athiest could become a theist just a quickly as a 'weak' athiest could."

Others argue that "after a while the lack of positive evidence becomes pretty strong negative evidence in itself." Michael Martin describes how someone can scour the entire room for a missing pair of glasses, and eventually decide that they are not in the room.


I just realized that you are very involved in a religion. Atheism. Probably more so than I am involved in CHristianity. So that is where you place your faith. Hmmm

[universe]

JH, huh?

[jhamrick]

Universe, What are you asking?

[smugg]

Originally posted by jhamrick
Science doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Hah! That's a good one, jhamrick. I appreciate your sense of humor.

The world is flat,

Man, this keeps coming up. I'd like you to show me the oldest document you know of which provides a proof the earth is flat. Before you start looking I'd like to warn you: No scientist or sailor ever seriously believed the earth was flat -- those stories about Columbus are myths. The earth was fairly accurately measured (as a sphere) as early as the third century BCE (!) by a scientist named Eratosthenes who also gave good figures for the earth's axial tilt and its distance from the sun. Sailors observed that ships would appear over the horizon top-first and knew that if the earth was flat the ships would appear all at once.

Can you show that the flat earth was ever a scientifically supported theory and not a myth?

the earth is the center of the universe?

And geocentrism, while it was held to be true by many people, was also never a scientific theory. It was a myth perpetuated by the Catholic church in the face of evidence to the contrary because a heliocentric universe didn't look to be designed specifically for man as their Christian dogma stated.

What, those scientists weren't as informed as us? My point exactly.

The science that you so dearly cling to will at some point in the future be scoffed at. If you don't believe that you are naive, and I don't think you are, smugg.

Maybe you just can't distinguish between superstition and science. Who's doing all this scoffing? When a theory is shown to be inaccurate, the theory just gets improved. The scientific parts, however, won't just get thrown out because they've been shown to be valid and useful.

Scientific understanding is incomplete, therefore, to believe in those things does require a measure of faith.

And I repeat that nobody should believe in any of that stuff in the sense that you mean. Our understanding will change and our explanations will improve. To cling dogmatically to, say, the theory of evolution, makes one a fool. To research it, ask questions and honestly evaluate the quality of the idea is the task one must undertake.

Incomplete and wrong are two totally different things.

Let me ask you this: do you think it's faith in random theories that let us build the internet, make high-impact plastics or send sattelites into orbit? Why wouldn't these things work for the ancient Egyptians? Don't you think it's because we have a more complete understanding of how things work today than they did then? Could an ancient Egyptian develop a cure for polio without understanding what a virus is? Or was Jonas Salk just relying on faith when he mixed his vaccine and started pumping it into children?

Like it or not, your life is full of faith. You just for whatever reason, have not chosen to place that faith in God.

I won't let you perpetuate this lie about me. I have no faith -- I'm an adult now. I got tired of waiting for Santa. If you can't accept this then let's talk about it, but to keep stating it as a fact is unecessary and limiting...

...although, this gets at the heart of our differences, doesn't it? As a Christian, do you think believing something makes it true regardless of evidence to the contrary or objections from others? Are you emotionally attached to the idea that I have faith because it makes you feel more justified in yours even when I (who should be capable of speaking for myself) tell you what I think? In psychology they call this projection. The assumption is that "I feel this way so everyone else must, also."

You want to talk about me, jhamrick? Then you're going to have to give me some credit on the subject. It's not fair when I ascribe ideas to you when you deny them, and it works both ways.

[Brandan Kraft]

Who said the world is flat? Where does the Bible say the world is flat?

Man, the Bible said the world is round long before scientists proclaimed it.

Isaiah 40:22, (NASB), It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

[blackhaw]

I have a question that I think should be in this post. Why can't a God who created a world and its laws use those laws when accomplishing things on the world He created? For example the crossing of the Red sea by using a land bridge. How does the fact that there was a land bridge (if there was one) automatically point to there not being a God? I think that it points to the opposite. I mean if we can start showing that events in the Bible probably took place then it would seem that it help the case for God. I think it would be one heck of a coincidence if all or most of the biblical stories are true but there is no God.

[universe]

Looks like a simple dimension difference; a circle could be flat or it could be a sphere. Point goes to the Bible since it does not claim flatness, the quality at hand. Next.

As to the problem with science changing: Smugg is correct. Men have accepted myth as science frequently. People would rather believe that which is common to them as the alternative is often quite frightening. The point of bringing up science is the way in which scientists test their beliefs, not whether they have ablsolute and perfect knowledge of the universe. (is that me? lol) Anyway, using the methodology of science to prove God either does not work because we have not gotten enough proof together yet or because it cannot be done. God wants us to have faith, not photographs and some souveniers from our trip to "Check out the options before you die." The fact is that a lot of Christians feel stupid when confronted with science and it's demand for facts, so we get defensive and start insisting that the FAITH which we hold tightly to is actually FACTS. Those words are spelled differently because they actually have TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS. We need to stop feeling like we have to prove everything to everyone. Remember that God draws people to Him. Lets let Him do that while we treasure our faith. Oh yeah, this is just my opinion.

[universe]

I almost forgot. The church has often made the mistake of being afraid to accept facts and cling to myths. But the church is not the Bible or God. It is a group of people who make a lot of errors.

[smugg]

Excellent post, Universe.

Oh, and as for the flat earth thing, the Bible does contain some ambiguity. While there is that verse in Isaiah which Brandan posted, there are also these which do imply a flat earth:

Isaiah 11:12 -- And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Isaiah 24:1 -- Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

I know they don't prove anything, just thought I'd point it out. They're at least as clear as circle (which the earth is not), but I'm not sure the Hebrews of the sixth century BCE had a word for sphere.

[universe]

JH, by your line of reasoning, as soon as someone comes up with a better idea, you will throw God out along with alchemy and fire-breathing dragons. I know you won't, but your argument hurts your argument more than it hurts his. That's why I said huh. Keep up the effort!

[jhamrick]

universe, you misunderstood. I was saying scientists discard their ideas when a better one comes along, implying that I wouldn't and therefore my belief system was a little more stable.


smugg and questian, allow me to apologize for letting this debate get so heated. I sincerely didn't know that the word "faith" is an insult to you. Trust me when I say that there were no ill intentions in those words, and allow me to briefly explain myself a little better.

What I would say faith is in a very simple definition, (not talking Webster's here) is belief in something that you haven't seen. Therefore, to believe George Washington was the first president, or that Alexander the Great ever existed takes a certain ammount of faith. Some of these things obviously take less faith than others. For instance, I wasn't around for Truman's regime, but being that the overwhelming evidence is stacked in the favor of Truman once being president, I can buy into that, though it takes a small ammount of faith because I didn't see it. It's not like the history books haven't lied before.
Also, by this definition, when you trust someone for anything, it may be that they won't spit on your burger at Wendy's, this is an exercise in faith.

My point was not to imply that you believe in the Easter Bunny, but to show that you do exhibit faith in other areas.

If you still view this as an insult, I once again apologize, and won't say it again, though it will somewhat cripple my argument

[JesusFreak2K1]

I won't let you perpetuate this lie about me. I have no faith--I'm an adult now. I got tired of waiting for Santa.

I think many people view God like this. Let me just say that Santa is a candy coated (no pun intended) watered down version of what some people percieve God to be like. Dangerous!!

God is more than love...He is Holy! I can never imagine Santa raining fire down on a whole city!!! God did......see sodom and gomorrah! I can't imagine Santa flooding the Earth! God did...see Noah and the ark! I could never imagine Santa sacrificing his only son for me. God did.....see Jesus Christ!!!!!!

[jhamrick]

Oh universe, I just saw where you got confused.
What you read was a quote from questian. I should have specified.