Why I Am A Skeptic...

Religion, by definition, is based on the notion of a supernatural realm. In philosophy, "natural" designates the attribute of obeying to physical laws. Therefore, supernatural entities do not obey to physical laws : for this to be, they have to be immaterial, because physical laws are dependant on the material nature of the universe, and matter is necessarily guided by them. This means that supernatural entities do not exist in the same plane of existence than natural - material - entities.

Does this supernatural plane exist ? How can we know if individual supernatural entities exist ? Science cannot tell us anything about this. The reason is not because science is against religion, even if they are opposites. The reason is because science is based on the assumption that everything has physical causes. This is the only way that knowledge can advance. If one posits supernatural causes, there is no more knowledge of mechanisms to be gained. If "God did it" was a scientific answer, science wouldn't go very far, because there would be no need to go further. Supernatural entities are considered to be the domain of personal belief and can only be superimposed on the physical universe.

If science cannot tell us anything about the supernatural, it can tell us that all mechanisms known to man have known or possible physical causes. The origin of the universe, of man and his intellectual capacities, and others, are all well-explained events. It is always a possibility to superimpose a supernatural cause on top of it, but that is an unnecessary addition. Occam's Razor tells us that if two theories can explain the same data equally well, and that one theory has more entities present than the other, that we should prefer the simpler theory. This is because unnecessary entities or conditions could be added to any theory, that would make it complicated while adding no explanative power. Supernatural entities are unnecessary to explain any other piece of data, and are therefore unnecessary entities.

Being unnecessary does not necessarily mean inexistant. How can we decide if supernatural entities exist ? This is obviously not an easy task, since they are deemed to be immaterial, and therefore undetectable. This is why they are beyond the reach of the scientific method or of any direct empirical judgment. In that respect, they are the perfect cop-out for all quackeries. If material causes are used, it is easy to examine them and refute or accept them. But if supernatural causes are used, they cannot be examined, and therefore are more easily accepted.

Not only are supernatural entities beyond the reach of examination, but they are also of an undefined nature. For that reason, they can be claimed as the cause of anything. The reason why we can say that the supernatural is undefined is because it is mostly defined negatively. This is akin to negative theology in Christianity, and used in the same way. The supernatural is not natural, therefore it does not obey to physics - it is not material, therefore it is not made of matter - these two characteristics become unknown, undefined, since there is nothing to replace them with. The supernatural is not said to be "made" of anything, nor is it said what laws its composition obeys.

Since such supernatural entities are an easy cop-out, because they are unperceivable and undefined, it may seem that there is no way to refute them. But that is not true. If the supernatural belief is not limited to supernatural effects or contents, we can draw from empirical evidence to refute such a belief. Let me illustrate with an example.

If a religion claims that human beings have souls, and that this soul is the person that survives death, the claim that souls are the receptacle of personal identity can be examined. But the functions of the soul are attributed to the brain, which is a material entity, therefore belief in souls is dependant on our examination of the brain. Since the brain fills the function that we attribute to souls (like personality, intelligence, etc), we can say that the soul cannot contain these things. If there is such a thing as a personal supernatural entity, it contains nothing that we attribute to a soul. Thus we indirectly conclude that this belief is false. The same can be said of such concepts as astral bodies or spiritual bodies. As long as a supernatural concept is related to material entities in some way, the claim can be examined. Note that, in this particular example, it could be argued that the soul is not part of the person but a copy of it, but not mentioning all the problems associated with non-material support for the mind, evidence for this particular form remains to be seen.

If a sufficient number of attributes are put forward for a supernatural entity, it can also be refuted by deductive evidence. One example of this is gods. See "strong-atheism" for the deductive evidence of this example.

Finally, as I said earlier, even if the supernatural exists, it has no necessary role in our universe, therefore it does not directly concern us. Unless a supernatural-material relationship can be established, the supernatural is merely a hypothetical closed realm which seems to be the product of human imagination, and which serves the role of sustaining delusions. This realm has no evidence supporting it, and therefore stays forever in the domain of the hypothetical. According to Occam's Razor, anyone who invokes them must show data which cannot be answered without them.

 

Easier way to look at it: The natural plane is simply a subset of the supernatural plane.

Even though God did it, wouldn't it still be interesting to understand what God did? In video games, the more you understand, the farther God takes you. Same in the natural realm.

Sucker.

Can't you say "emotions are just a chemical reaction?" and not capture what emotions are? Need to look at the whole, not the parts.

God isn't beyond the reach of examination. Right here, right now, available 24-7, breathing in and out, heart beating, all the sensations you feel. You look at it as if God controls all and you will see the things that God does around you.

 

I scanned the previous posts and wish to ad the following.

1. That's why they call it faith, cos' ya gotta believe, brothers!

2. Religion, like any other form of GOVERNMENT is a convenient way for a small, select group of people to control a very large group of people.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled fascist resistance.

 

Khrakky, you make interesting points here and there, but until you stop assuming that I am going just accept a "God" and go from there, I will not answer the responses.

I do not begin with a foreign concept and continue to regress, I begin with myself and continue to progress.

I do not, nor will I assume any "God". Not now. Not ever.

"Challenge Assumptions" is the third plank of my personal philosophy, so I am not about to just make an exception for an unproven, invisible, intangible, uncomprehensible, immaterial "being"...

A "being" is something, such as an object or an idea that exists. Since this "God" is no object, then "he" is nothing more than an idea or a subjective thought. I choose not to think it, thus *poof* no "god" for me.

 

yes but the problem is that science has not actually adressed these things because most psychologists and scientists studying the brain are incompetant and seem totally incapable of hypothesis.

but it will all come out eventually.

the 'meaning of life' and the basis of all religions can be proven or disproven by study of the human brain. but instead they spend 5 billion dollars on building 27 mile long particle accellerators

 

Indeed.

 

You seem only to deal with a naive, personal God; I.e. a God who has some existence as a discrete entity, one which can think, feel, know and so on. Your points are perfectly valid, but they only attack this childish view of God. A more mature, philosophically sophisticated idea of God is much harder to attack.

 

Such as? Aristotle's?

I just don't see any viable evidence (reasonable or concrete).

But, alas...I am open to it...as long as it is not fallacious.

 

Ever look at the writings of Robert Anton Wilson or Aliester Crowley Libertine?
Not much in there about the usual 'religious' ideas about the 'supernatural' - kind of a different take on it all.
I ask because you have Tim Leary's pic in your sig, and I know Leary worked with Wilson, and certainly acknowledged the Crowley influence.

 

"Myself" was a foreign concept to your self until you existed for a while and got used to having a self. Anyways...

Unless you look for God to test God's existence, you will not know the truth of God.

 

Crowley has always fascinated me. I will check into Wilson's writings a little deeper. I can almost grasp the Crowley viewpoint, but I can't make the leap from "energy" to "spirit" or any form of "transcendence" of energy/matter other than subjective ideas and I see this as merely psychological.

When the very word for soul (psuche) is where we get the term psyche and is dealing with the mind, it is difficult to see it any other way without having to make some sort of "leap" of blind faith into something incomprehensible. Which, to me, is absurd (and not in the good way).

 

Funny, I used natural methods to extract myself, however. I can analyze myself. I can see, feel, touch, hear, smell, and even taste myself. I can use all methods of deduction and induction to make a reasonable assessment of myself.

I can't say the same thing for your Sky Daddy.

"Unless you look for INCOMPREHENSIBLE-WILL NOT COMPUTE to test INCOMPREHENSIBLE-WILL NOT COMPUTE existence, you will not know the truth of INCOMPREHENSIBLE-WILL NOT COMPUTE... ABORT? IGNORE? RETRY?"

 

Same with God. It's not like you need to look that hard...

Try the command /F option to automatically fail disk read errors in the future.

You need an upgrade....

 

Both Crowley and Wilson are interesting.
I can see exactly what you mean about making the leap from 'energy' to 'spirit'. In the case of Crowley, he claimed that his magick was a method of changing the consciousness, raising it to a higher level. He also talks about other planes of being - the astral for example. The question is: Do these alleged other planes exist outside of the functioning of the brain? Leary, in 'The Game of Life' and elsewhere posits the idea of 'higher circuts' within the brain. That is one possibility.
Occultists and some 'religious', although not the orthodox who don't seem to think about these things much, claim that there are other planes of existence which exist separate from the brain, and that consciousness also can function independently of the brain. People who have out-of-the-body experiences would say much the same. But the question remains - is it really out of the body, or is it actually all taking place within the brain.
Myself, I think it's possible other planes may have some objective reality separate from us. Subtle worlds, which are spoken of by many - shamans, mystics, occultists etc. However - don't ask me to prove it! Thats just my own leaning based on my own experiences.

 

Good post, Bill.

Interesting.

 

*

 

Libertine

One of the things that inspires me is the workings of the mind. So your question about proving and disproving takes on some significance, given that thoughts, imagination, or dreams cannot be proven to exist, which in my mind demonstrates the workings of a dual element of reality that is evidenced as energy and matter in the physical sense. So that in a way proves that the invisible is as tangible as the visible. At least that's the slant that I think you're taking.
That is of course if my thoughts are in fact demonstrably and actually "real", and that this discussion is in fact happening! ;-)

I think the "God" thing stems from mankinds primitive attempts to understand higher concepts such as thought and imagination that are more within our grasp now than they were in our earlier ignorant times when mankind
attempted to explain the inexplicable,therby creating religion. The trouble is that we inherit the paradigms of our upbringing, thereby reinforcing and continuing such beliefs (the sins of the fathers are passed on unto the generations). That is where the "born again" thing really comes from, because unless one removes the paradigmatic thought constraints that are inherited through society, religion, or family, one will not see clearly through the eyes of uncontaminated innocence (like a child indeed). I am fairly certain that you have done this in your way, as I have done it in my way, as eventually all will do it in some way or other. Knowing the truth indeed sets you free, and amongst the lies truth can even now be found.
BTW ~ the "ignore list" has been such a blessing for me with regards to the pest. **Sweet relief **

 

I never read these things all that closely, so bearing that in mind...

I don't think that what I've quoted is a true statement at all. The origin of the universe has been explained? The human mind has been explained? HAHAHA! DO NOT MAKE ME LAUGH SO HEARTILY! Do not claim to be a person of science if you are not going to be scientific. You're obviously biased towards an atheistic position and you are sacrificing reason in doing so, as what you have said is completely untrue. I digress...

If lack of physical evidence for an ethereal plane of existence precludes its non-existence, then the same goes for the alternative. That being non-existence, for which there is an equal lack of evidence. As far as we'll ever know, there is no such thing as non-existence.

What is life? Can it exist independently of the body? If not, we are already truly dead, correct? We merely consist of average, lifeless material? If we are already dead, what changes when we die? When a caterpillar morphs into a butterfly, does the caterpillar cease to exist? BAH! BAH!

 

How can I be biased towards the 'atheistic position'? What is that? There is no such thing as "non-existence".

You tell me..."what is life?" Where it "came" from....

The 'atheistic position' is a lack of belief in a theistic (supernatural) origin. Prove any evidence of such, and your position will be credible.

BAH BAH BLACK SHEEP, HAVE YOU ANY WOOL?

 

Honestly, I believe that more of a cynic than a skeptic.

C'mon, admit it! Most Atheists are like that.