sufficient evidence for a supernatural event
What would you accept as sufficient evidence for a supernatural event at some point in history, such as the resurrection?
We have many eyewitness accounts of dragons in China.
In April, Yonghe’s 1st Year, Dong Jin Dynasty (345 AD), two dragons, one black and the other white, appeared on Mount Long. Murong, Emperor of the Yan Kingdom, led officials of the court to the mountain and held a worship ceremony 200 yards away from the dragons.
We have many eyewitness accounts of witchcraft in Salem.
They accused her of having Familiarity with the Devil, in the time of Examination, in the shape of a Black man whispering in her ear; they affirmed, that her Yellow-Bird sucked betwixt her Fingers in the Assembly; and order being given to see if there were any sign, the Girl that saw it said, it was too late now; she had removed a Pin, and put it on her head; which was found there sticking upright.
We have many eyewitness accounts of a resurrection in Jerusalem.
Mark
Mark’s Gospel was the first canonical gospel, written approximately 70 CE. The earliest known manuscripts of Mark do not even have a resurrection narrative, beyond the young man telling the women that Jesus had risen. Later texts included resurrection appearances which bring this gospel more or less into line with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. However, the answer in respect to Mark must be that the earliest known gospel text did not mention the women speaking to the risen Jesus.Matthew
Matthew’s Gospel reports an earthquake that rolled away the stone. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw the angel who caused the earthquake sitting on the stone. The women saw Jesus later while on the way to tell the disciples of their experience. Finally, the eleven disciples went to a mountain in Galilee and saw Jesus.Luke
In Luke’s Gospel, the stone had already been moved when a group of women arrived, but there is no mention of an earthquake. This time, two men appeared to the women in shining garments, apparently angels. Later, Jesus appeared to two men, Cleopas and (possibly) Peter, but they did not recognise him, even after conversing with him, inviting him home, and eating dinner with him. They suddenly realised that he was Jesus, (“their eyes were opened and they knew him”) but then he vanished out of their sight. At his next appearance, Jesus went to some lengths to assure them that he really was Jesus, showing the disciples his wounds, and finally being drawn up into heaven. All this happened in and near Jerusalem, not in Galilee.
Unless you believe in dragons, witches and reanimation of the dead, it seem wise to assume there’s something fishy about all these eyewitness accounts. So, if history tells us that reliance on eyewitness accounts may be a dubious manner to base our understanding of actual events, perhaps science can help us. Indeed it can, for science tells us we cannot rely on eyewitness accounts.
In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event.
Dear readers, I would like to ask you, for I am unsure, what would you accept as sufficient evidence for a supernatural event at some point in history?
Because if you can’t come up with anything, your naturalism is not a falsifiable belief.
LikeLike
Thank you for commenting PeW, but does that answer the question?
LikeLike
No, it doesn’t.
It does, however, beg a question: which eyewitness accounts do you reject? All of them? Not much left of history if that’s the case.
LikeLike
Not all eyewitness accounts in history relate to things that science tells us are impossible. You asked what evidence I would need to accept *supernatural* occurrences in history. As we only have eyewitness accounts from limited and biased individuals to go on, and we know it’s all impossible given our understanding of the physical world, it’s sensible to assume that any references to *specifically* supernatural events are mistaken or made up. With regards to other events, such as political and social history, we tend to have sources from various points of view that help us build the best picture of events we can get at this distance – and we would do well to understand these sources using our current understanding of science, psychology etc.
LikeLike
Eyewitness sources?
LikeLike
{shit, losing argument, find something to pedantically pick up on so no-one notices} 🙂
LikeLike
No, that’s the main point I’m making. If we are throwing out eyewitness accounts and personal testimony….well, that’s most of history.
LikeLike
Sure there is…..lot of good usable stuff! (whether true accounts, fables, or fairytales…)
we can learn from our past, and even from the stories told by those in our past who learned lessons…etc. Good testable stuff….
now unsupportable claims that have not been proven , you know…supernatural stuff ….(like sunlight will kill a vampire) might not be good to bank your money on if a vampire were to suddenly appear unless it was tried out first…. 😉
LikeLike
Sure, there’s plenty of good stuff. So which eyewitness accounts do we keep, and which ones do we throw out?
LikeLike
I think the question is which ones do we accept without testing, or without question as absolute truth, and /or as meant to be literal/etc. I would say none. As far as whether actual history occurred, we have some manner of testing, relics, what is found and discovered by those who visit the sites and dig to learn etc. But if there is an account of a dragon , (as violet mentions) or a person raised from the dead…or a man who was vanished into another realm, or of a man who was as big as an oak tree….if we cannot test it, how can we just accept it to be truth? and not a legend, or a tale that was added too over time…(what did Johnny Appleseed actually do?)
LikeLike
I’m still curious to know how YOU answer the question.
LikeLike
BIG DITTO. I’ve clearly indicated that in terms of events from hundreds or thousands of years ago, the evidence for supernatural events can be rejected out of hand. Do you believe there were dragons in China? Check out the link, there were lots of sightings. What would you need to reject these?
LikeLike
I’m not asking how you reject it. That’s obvious. I’m asking what would convince you.
LikeLike
You tell me, then I’ll tell you. Blogging etiquette.
LikeLike
You promise? Sweet!
LikeLike
Sheeesh, Whisky, just answer her
LikeLike
scrap that… i saw your answer. Not very convincing
LikeLike
How so?
What would YOU accept as sufficient evidence for a supernatural event in antiquity?
LikeLike
The London Philharmonic (having been present at the magical moment) playing continuously ever since, conducted by the Once’ler, floating 15m off the ground… as proof something happened.
I think this is such a silly subject. No magical even has ever been recorded. Are you seriously trying to suggest one has? What?
LikeLike
As you’re no doubt aware, I find the resurrection highly probable. So yes, I am.
But what I’m interested in is what sort of evidence would be considered good evidence of a discrete supernatural event in antiquity. 🙂 Surely you can come up with something.
LikeLike
A “discrete” supernatural event? B’wahahaaaaaaa!
You actually believe in the resurrection myth? And yet you don’t believe the other resurrection myths i presented to you…. why not believe those?
LikeLike
Well, for one thing they weren’t actually resurrection myths, as I pointed out.
Getting to that on the Carrier piece, by the way.
It just bothers me that a self-proclaimed skeptic would hold a belief that no evidence could conceivably overturn.
LikeLike
Looking forward to it.
Yes, Whisky, they ARE resurrection myths. There are quite a few, the plot line is rather old. You doubt those.In fact, you DON’T BELIEVE those happened at all… and yet there is as much evidence for those myths as there is for your god-man myth.
You do, of course, see where i’m going with this Mr. Hypocrite 😉
LikeLike
I seriously doubt that all these resurrection myths and proto-resurrection myths and dying-demigod myths have ANY positive attestation, let alone multiple independent attestation within two centuries of the events described.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s right, and Santa Claus will bring you that shiny red bike… I promise.
“My myth is real! Your myth is, well, a myth! So there!”
LikeLike
You know Origen addressed the Dionysus resurrection in his Contra Celsus?
Tell me, Whisky, why do you not believe Dionysus’s story?
LikeLike
Have you read that portion of Contra Celsus, or are you just parroting what someone else has told you? Origen’s discussion of Dionysus states only that he was a man elevated to godhood and he wore women’s clothes.
Dionysus did not have a resurrection myth. His body was eaten by the Titans and his still-beating heart was taken by Zeus and regrown into a full body. Good luck drawing a parallel there.
LikeLike
exactly.
LikeLike
Well of course Origin isn’t going to speak highly of the myth… he had another myth to sell, didn’t he? Honestly, are you trying to use that argument? Please, I’m not as gullible as a Young Earth Creationist.
So Dionysus (“King of Kings”) dies, remains dead for 3 days and is brought back to life: “Twice born.”…. sounds familiar, doesn’t it? And yet, you refuse to believe in this story. Now, you haven’t answered why you don’t believe it. Dionysus was worshiped for hundreds of years before your god-man. Millions believed… why don’t you? What is your rational for dismissing it?
LikeLike
You claimed Origen addressed the “resurrection” of Dionysus. I’m wondering why you said this when Origen mentions no such thing.
Care to provide citations that Dionysus was referred to as “King of Kings” or was dead for three days? I’ll wait.
Why do I dismiss Dionysus? Well, if I’m going to believe an event was part of history, a date would be nice for starters.
LikeLike
Oh Whisky, there are a thousand and one citations on Dionysus. Don’t go scurrying away, throwing out silly deflections to try and change the subject. Your AIG persona is coming out, and its not pretty.
The story is what is important…. and it was a story believed by millions.
so tell me, why are those millions wrong, and you right? What is your rationale….
LikeLike
I looked it up. Couldn’t find a single reference to either of those things. I’m happy to accept it if it’s actually the case, but the burden of proof is on you (given that we got a false Origen attribution earlier).
LikeLike
Now you’re just dressed up in your full AIG garb. Deflect, run away, hide, nah, nah, nah, nah!!!!!!
Dionysus, like Osiris, was dismembered and then put back together. If you try and claim these stories aren’t a part of human history then you’re just being retarded.
I want to know why you think millions of people were wrong believing these characters defeated death. And while you’re at it, tell us why the billions of Hindus are wrong in also believing their god-man characters defeated death.
Don’t deflect. Just answer the question like an adult.
LikeLike
This is your typical response when someone asks you to cite your sources?
LikeLike
Whisky, are you seriously trying to say you can’t find anything about the death of Dionysus and Osiris?
AIG hat!
LikeLike
No, I can’t find any reference to the two things I asked for references about: first, that Dionysus was referred to as “King of Kings” and second, that he was dead for three days.
You keep making claims, but you aren’t so good at backing them up.
LikeLike
Here, a 1 second google search:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/dionysus.html
LikeLike
Not the most reliable of sources. Though the “slept three nights” thing might be a lead.
LikeLike
Here: Listverse’s 10 characters who were resurrected.
http://listverse.com/2013/03/30/10-resurrected-religious-figures/
LikeLike
As you can see… an age-old plot line. Nothing unique about your god man, and you claim so…. odd.
LikeLike
As for dates: You don’t even have a date for jebus! You can’t even prove he lived! You have hearsay, and that’s it.
LikeLike
Last I checked, the various accounts of Jesus’s life are full of dates and geographical-historical settings.
Now, accurate or not, they at least place the account within history. That doesn’t seem to be the case for Osiris, Dionysus, or any of these others.
LikeLike
“Accounts of Jesus’s life”… Ahahahaaaaaa!
By “Accounts” you mean the bible…. ONLY.
Nice try, but terribly weak.
LikeLike
Immaterial. You asked why I rejected the Dionysus and Osiris myths, and I said the first problem was that they weren’t even set in any actual historical period. That’s a non-starter right off the bat.
LikeLike
Ok, this isn’t going anywhere…. and you haven’t looked good in this, Whisky. Sorry, but you just played silly games. You ignored the millions of people who lived in the times of the tales and believed… and pretended not to be able to find sources. You’re also IGNORING the hundreds of millions of Hindus who still believe in their characters.
But ok, your magic is true and their magic is just smoke and mirrors. Fine, delude yourself all you like.
LikeLike
I gave you my criteria.
LikeLike
And yet you can’t meet that criteria for your god man….
Please, show me some evidence (outside the bible) your god-man lived….
LikeLike
I can’t meet the criteria of multiple attestation placing the figure within a known historical period?
LikeLike
multiple attestation…. from one source, the book selling the story.
LikeLike
So you reject the Q hypothesis? Interesting.
LikeLike
For a smart guy you can be pretty dumb, Whisky. So determined to hang onto your magical sky guy that you’ll build scenarios to believe in…. all the while dismissing tens of thousands of other gods and god-men who ALSO defeated death.
That, sir, is interesting…
LikeLike
If any of their myths were set in actual history, I might give them the time of day.
LikeLike
Answers in Genesis…. Yup
LikeLike
And while we’re at it, also explain your rationale for dismissing the death and resurrection of Osiris.
Now, don’t try and say the stories differ. the plot lines are what’s important: death is defeated and the god-man triumphs.
LikeLike
I would be curious to PaW’s thoughts on Krishna, as it is recorded in the Bhagavad Gita
and the resurrection performed there of Parikshit by Krishna…
LikeLike
Hi Holly! I was saving Krishna as my Ace, but now that its out… Whisky, we’d also like to know your rationale for dismissing the Vedic resurrection stories; tales believed by billions. Why are all those people wrong, and you right?
LikeLike
::hangs head::
So sorry John!
I have several hindu friends (a few of the Krishna variety) so twas a natural question for me.
::holds hand out for smacking::
I hate pulling out anothers card before it was meant to be played…
LikeLike
Oh, don’t be so silly 🙂
LikeLike
I did. See below.
LikeLike
i did, see below 🙂
LikeLike
Violet,
If science were to find an actual living dragon, would you then believe the story you have referenced?
LikeLike
I’m not sure why you say ‘science’ there but if an actual living dragon was flying about, I would certainly have to think it’s more likely the stories from China are true. Do you have a minimum requirement for supernatural events in history? I know it’s different when you have faith anyway in terms of your god’s supernatural powers, but is there anything that would convince you about something like dragons or witches?
LikeLike
Violet,
I said “science” because it is the only evidence that scientists will believe. If I, Cindy, were to, in fact, see a dragon and unfortunately dropped my iPhone at the shock of seeing said dragon such that it broke so I couldn’t take a picture, and even if 20 other people besides me saw it, but were not able to snap a picture (no iPhones in Jesus’ time), the scientific community would not accept our observations as scientific because we are not scientists.
LikeLike
Sorry, I missed the last part. If I saw a dragon, I would obviously believe (I am, after all a doubting Thomas), but I could also believe if enough people I trusted said they saw it. I would, of course, believe it if someone showed me a video which could be verified. But these are all things I would be willing to accept in light of current technology.
I believe that Abraham Lincoln was president of the U.S. and there are a number of pictures, biographies and movies, etc., some of them with slightly different information and slants. Some people have tried to project higher moral goals onto Lincoln because it suits their cause and some try to point out that they should question anything they hear about Lincoln because liberals like him. Yet, today I know Lincoln existed. 2,000 years from now, perhaps Violet and Cindy redux will be arguing whether Lincoln was just a good idea.
In some cases, it is easier to believe in something that cannot be tested. And that goes for both sides.
LikeLike
PEW, step off your epistemological paradox soapbox and answer the question!
LikeLike
Hmm. What would I accept as evidence of a supernatural event in antiquity?
Written accounts that likely could not have arisen in their extant form but for the existence of a supernatural event are good evidence for a supernatural event.
LikeLike
Is that contradictory accounts, some of which get edited so they have more in common? How does that relate to clearly described sightings of dragons?
LikeLike
No, that’s a general guiding principle.
If I may ask, which contradiction between the resurrection accounts do you find most glaring?
Of course, it’s not just those four short passages which cannot be explained but for the resurrection. It’s the majority of the New Testament.
LikeLike
PaW
What do you do with all the other things? claims of Jesus…for his followers and what not? and lack of evidence of the supernatural today? or…have you experienced miracles and what not ?
LikeLike
Not sure what you’re referencing. Are you talking about Jesus’s statements concerning the miracles his followers would be able to perform?
I see no reason why such texts should be expected to refer to anyone other than their immediate audience, regardless of the snake-handlers’ protests to the contrary.
What reason would we have to expect miracles today?
LikeLike
perhaps because he said things like with the faith of a mustard seed one can move mountains? and where two or three are gathered in my name…there I am in the midst? miracles were allegedly occurring in the old AND the new testament…
rather convenient for them not to occur now isn’t it? when they can be tested?
Is god still as powerful yesterday today and forever? does the faith of a mustard seed mean something different now than then? what reason do you have to expect miracles would stop today? or that his words were only meant for his immediate followers?
LikeLike
Faith like a mustard seed: Unless you think the writers of the synoptic gospels expected Jesus’s followers to routinely rearrange geography, it’s a safe bet that there’s PROBABLY a metaphor in there somewhere.
Two or three are gathered: Contrary to how this passage is typically quoted, Jesus is telling his followers that they should consult each other when settling disputes between Christians. So nothing to do with miracles here.
Jesus even said that signs and wonders weren’t going to be the order of the day. “A wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given but the sign of Jonah.”
LikeLike
Great response!
LikeLike
come now….he withered a fig tree “magically” and allegedly right in front of them…or was that a metaphor about the metaphor?
“Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. “And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.”
i don’t think anyone thinks its routinely rearranging geography… 😉
but I do think that most take that to mean something more than…just everyday living with no sign of something more than what nonbelievers see…
and what of those who don’t mean to be …wicked and adulterous…but rather have asked about even the dogs getting the crumbs under the table? is there nothing for those who ask seek and knock and still find….nothing?
LikeLike
My point is that once you accept that the geographical rearrangement is most likely a metaphor, the passage is open to a variety of interpretations.
LikeLike
Speaking of mustard seeds:
http://deadwildroses.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/the-dwr-sunday-disservice-mustard-seed-faith/
LikeLike
Violet and Holly, I think you cannot take the “faith of the mustard seed” example and say that proves that God doesn’t exist. It is a parable. It is not literal. A similar concept can be applied to any obstacle. If you have no faith, you will accomplish nothing. If you have even a little faith, you can move a mountain (think the Little Engine Who Could).
There have been several larger miracles that reportedly occurred in the 20th century (and before) but there is no “test” to prove they were miracles. All they can do is say, “we can find no observable scientific reason” for whatever the occurrence was.
It is much the same with the “fact” of evolution. Even though you cannot test that evolution has the power to create anything, it is considered a fact because no one can refute it with a test and there are no “better” scientific theories.
Then there are some occurrence like the “hysterical strength” scenarios often described where there is no way to reproduce the event, thus test it. Does it mean they didn’t happen?
The demands by many “scientists” that an event be able to be reproduced and observed by “scientists” seems very burdensome and is meant to try and inhibit anyone except a few “elites” from being the “authorities” of any observance.
Scientists have never once been able to take a primordial soup and inject it with laser beams, or whatever, and through manipulation cause to occur even the simplest life form. We have not witnessed in recorded human history the evolution of one species to form a separate species. Within the fossil record, life appears fully formed, as if it just appeared on the scene all at once with no evidence of convincing intermediate species. Darwin, himself, was convinced numerous intermediate species would eventually be found, but was stymied as to why they were not there during his lifetime. Even evolutionists like Dawkins found this disconcerting and other evolutionists like Goldschmidt and Gould were dismissed by fundamentalist evolutionists because their positions seemed to highlight that Darwinian evolution had some problems. In fact, Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium earned him the pejorative title of the “accidental creationist”.
The fact is that the “fact of evolution” can not be tested.
LikeLike
Well, you get an embarrassed silence from me on this Cindy. I think you’ve got a little further to come out from the fundamentalist teachings you’re shaking off …
LikeLike
I’m not sure which part you are embarrassed about for me, but I suspect it is my view on the “fact” of evolution. That does not mean I don’t believe in a world billions of years old or that I don’t believe dinosaurs existed a really, really, long time ago and are not just some fossil deposits caused by Noah’s flood. I tend to get annoyed more when people question me on my beliefs in this area than I do when they question whether God exists.
I did not come to my belief on evolution through the church. I studied science in college. I did not approach this as an issue of trying to tear down the “fact” evolution so I could bolster my faith.
Evolution and my god Jesus or Jehovah were never mutually exclusive in my mind. Fundamentalist Christians and Atheists are the only ones who take that stance.
So, I have looked at the fossil evidence, and the lack of intermediate species as something that always rubbed me wrong (as someone who studied science). Evolutionists are just as dogmatic (in my opinion) as Fundamentalist Christians. They both believe if they give one inch on their dogma then the other side is going to bring their whole raison d’etre crashing down around their heads and they will have to crawl up in a ball and start sucking their thumbs. This fear has led evolutionists to hold onto wild evolutionary hoaxes like Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man. and Haeckel’s embryonic drawings.
LikeLike
sure it was a parable (and i don’t think either of us were using that one parable to “prove” anything.. 😉
but my point was that Jesus is claimed to have magically /supernaturally instantly withered a fig tree right in front of them telling them they would be capable of this and more…
So many who want to get past the words of jesus that imply there will still be “magic” today…
seem to attempt to lay them all off as…metaphorical….or just for “back then”…
what is the purpose of having faith in an all powerful supreme being if there is nothing to have faith about? can miracles occur today? (when they can be tested?)
and if not…why not?
LikeLike
Holly, obviously there is a misunderstanding somewhere. I thought you were saying that Jesus said you could move a mountain with the faith of a mustard seed but since no one is moving mountains (you, know, actually moving mountains) that this proved (or suggested) that Jesus is not real.
Personally, I believe there are miracles. I’ve never seen one personally except the ones that happen every day in nature (like the birth of my daughter), but I’ve heard enough things and read enough things to believe that there are supernatural events that cannot be explained by science as science allows you to explain them. Perhaps they, indeed, have a scientific explanation, but the fact that they can’t be tested….well, you know.
LikeLike
“Because if you can’t come up with anything, your naturalism is not a falsifiable belief.”
Incorrect. If your question had been “what would you accept as sufficient evidence for a supernatural event NOW?”, you would have a case. But the more we get into this conversation, the more I realise that the expectation that any event in history could be proven as supernatural is completely false. It has nothing to do with falsifiable beliefs and everything to do with evidence and testing.
LikeLike
PeW: GOING TO POST THIS COMMENT AGAIN BECAUSE YOU’RE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING IT:
“Because if you can’t come up with anything, your naturalism is not a falsifiable belief.”
Incorrect. If your question had been “what would you accept as sufficient evidence for a supernatural event NOW?”, you would have a case. But the more we get into this conversation, the more I realise that the expectation that any event in history could be proven as supernatural is completely false. It has nothing to do with falsifiable beliefs and everything to do with evidence and testing.
LikeLike
That’s a fair assertion, one I’ll have to think about.
LikeLike
Hmm, well it would have to be something more substantial than Jesus’s image on a piece of toast. I wouldn’t believe another’s account of a supernatural event, either. In all honesty, I wouldn’t believe it unless I saw it/experienced it myself. The story of “doubting Thomas” is a feeble attempt to silence skeptics like me.
LikeLike
I don’t think I would believe it if I saw it. I would assume that, like everything else in history, there’s a logical, natural explanation that I don’t have access to. Although if I saw a fire-breathing dragon …
LikeLike
That would tend to leave you at a disadvantage if indeed a supernatural event took place which you did not personally witness.
LikeLike
Yes, and I might miss out on some pretty unicorns, too.
LikeLike
Or rhinoceri.
LikeLike
Based on the standard definition of “supernatural” (not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material), I would have to say I don’t believe in supernatural events. Thus, there can be no evidence that would convince me that one occurred. (Certainly not the “eyewitness” accounts of a guy’s resurrection recorded in a book over 2000 years old.)
LikeLike
At least you admit your faith-based axiomatic belief outright. Props.
LikeLike
While this is the sensible reply, physicsandwhiskey (aka PeW) is extremely pedantic and, as far as I can tell, is using some sort of scientific understanding of theories that states that for a theory to be true, you must admit something can falsify it. However, I agree with you that especially when it comes to history, I can’t think of any possibility for proving a supernatural event, as there are too many variables we can’t test … in fact, I’ll have to go retract one of my responses …
LikeLike
But that is the point, Violet. Science has set the rules for what counts as science. Specifically as it relates to the “fact” of evolution, the scientific world (though they can’t prove how evolution created life) says that this is the best explanation based on the fossil record and if you can’t prove the “fact” of evolution wrong though some “scientific method” then it will be presented as a “fact” until some better “fact” comes along (that is not creation).
LikeLike
Indeed. That suits me just fine. Test and retest based on evidence and our current understanding of the world. Science never claims to have an end point. I could be wrong, but its seems like you’re suggesting that science should hold all the answers, like a god would. It’s simply a human attempt to express our understanding of how things function. If science has found reasonable answers and facts for every single thing that people all over the world previously attributed to gods and supernatural spirits, then it is more than logical to assume that the answers for bits we don’t know will continue to lie in the physical world. Do you expect scientists in India or Japan to to consider the Christian creation myth? Do US scientists check out Indian or Japanese creation myths when they’re studying how the life came into existence? You’re projecting your cultural religion on to the rest of the world. Apart from that, if a deity did exist why do you think it would leave an end point to it at the end of scientific understanding Surely such an all-powerful being could and would create a completely self-explanatory existence.
LikeLike
Violet, I suspect no matter how much I protest that my personal religious beliefs do not shape my views on this particular subject, you are not going to believe me. I’ll give it one last shot. I have absolutely no reason to make this claim for any other reason than thoughtful, academic, scientific (at least in my mind) consideration of the fossil evidence (both what I see and what I don’t) because my personal religious beliefs do not preclude believing in evolution and believing in God at the same time. I like monkeys. I have no personal problem regarding my self worth or my place in the world (I’m a woman, after all) if I found I evolved from monkeys or that we had a common ancestor (it might explain a lot, actually).
The fact is that the “fact of evolution” and its supporters do not allow any thoughtful, academic dissent even among themselves because it could lead to something really bad like maybe people believing in creation or something similar (sound familiar?). So, evolutionists who have tried to explain some of the problems they see with the Darwinian view of evolution with theories like “the hopeful monster” and “punctuated equilibrium” have been run out of town on a rail or shamed into explaining that that is not what they “really” meant. Even the British Museum of Natural Science was attacked because they displayed their dinosaur bones grouped in the “cladist” model which many purist evolutionists worried might give creationists some credibility. Where there can be no questioning, there can be no real science. That is my point.
LikeLike
Fair enough! That doesn’t sound too bad. You’re right that science has to be open to constant questioning.
LikeLike
UFO’s. Many many people sight UFO’s and even take photos. Don’t even need to go back 2000 years.
The real question is: What evidence is enough to convince one that a historical event (non-supernatural) actually happened / did not happen? We’re looking at Monsanto cooking the FDA’s data (or buying them over) and viciously cutting down all opposition to their policies, where there is solid evidence (but what would be considered “enough to convince”?) that GM food, particularly round-up ready harvests, are damaging to people’s health.
If Monsanto has the gift of “vanishing” real evidence and making solid evidence seem not enough, what chance does an ephemera like Jesus have? It’s simple: Either you believe, or you don’t. And I agree with your point: Then you also need to acknowledge that the eyewitness accounts of witchcraft and dragons in China might be true.
LikeLike
You believe in UFOs?
The point of my question was not “Why don’t you accept the New Testament?” but rather “what WOULD you accept?”
If a belief is held so firmly that no conceivable evidence would overturn it, then it’s not actually a defensible belief.
LikeLike
What about if logic, common sense, history and science lead you to believe that no conceivable evidence could ever be presented? Obviously the answer you’re looking for is that:
1. The event is verified by several types of source with a variety of opinions i.e. not all followers of a new cult; and
2. In the event of a death, a certificate of death verified by a professional i.e. not just the unconscious, badly beaten body of a young, strong man; and
3. In the event of a reanimation, several witnesses view the actual change of state from dead to alive (not all followers of a new cult) and instantly recognise their best friend (and don’t think he’s a stranger) and that all the eyewitness accounts give vaguely the same account of when earthquakes occur, who actually saw the body, and where the key events occurred.
I’m probably missing a few other things, but dinner’s ready!
LikeLike
Enjoy dinner!
If you get a chance, let me know what you would consider to be a good basic guiding principle on accepting or rejecting accounts of the supernatural.
LikeLike
I just did!!!!
LikeLike
I mean in general.
LikeLike
1. You have to accept there is no evidence for anything supernatural since the advent of modern science, which explained everything that had previously be assumed to be supernatural. Based on this, the ignorance of eye-witnesses in terms of their understanding of science/nature and the fact that we can usually easily find rational explanations for references to supernatural occurrences in history, you would have to approach any claims of supernatural events in history with extreme skepticism. Would you agree?
2. As such, in terms of eye-witness accounts, you would need several from different types of people, and especially from people who had nothing to gain from the claim being true. There would also have to be no physical reason we can account for through modern science that could explain it. And, if possible, some sort of physical evidence e.g. a dragon’s bones, a bit of cloth with a divine face on it. You would also need a plausible explanation why the supernatural force or event stopped before we could reliably test these things.
3. What’s the point in asking the question? Nothing in history fits that bill so it’s a moot point.
Is that general enough?
LikeLike
Yep!
LikeLike
[Pew scuttles off to apply *his* historical-contextual approach and squeeze the malleable religion that is Christianity into a mould of roughly this shape]
LikeLike
Haha.
LikeLike
Actually, in reply to Nan’s comment I think I’ve decided that it’s pretty impossible. There are too many variables we can’t test when it comes to history. Supernatural forces themselves aren’t falsifiable, something could come along and provide evidence now or in the future, but in terms of historical events, given what we understand about people and nature, there would be nothing that could convince me.
LikeLike
I think you’re the only blogger I’m afraid of. I had an involuntary shudder when I saw your cat. How odd!
LikeLike
LOL her real name is “Funnyface” and she does have this disdaining glare to her. But she’s really a sweetie.
LikeLike
LOL, no… UFOs are a case of real scientific evidence. I’m not talking about Van Daeniken either but about air drills by the US Defence Force. Remember “UFO” stands for “unidentified flying object”. (There are a few in our home on occasion) 😉
LikeLike
Hi physicsandwhiskey. Yes, I did get that… and in an effort to be super-objective, as scientists strive to be (at least the honest ones), I had to admit that what is defined even by science as “sufficient evidence” can be overthrown by politics in a heartbeat. Scientific method says that for a small statistical survey a random sample of 30 specimens is a valid statistical figure. In practice 1) that gets beaten down by people who don’t like what was found and 2) it gets abused by people not selecting randomly but selectively.
According to one lab in Australia, there is not sufficient evidence to prove a link between HIV and AIDS, nay, to even prove the very existence of HIV. Yet voice this concern at your peril – you’re instantly branded “denialist”.
And then there is the lot who claims that the moon landing in 1969 was a hoax… that we were all fed some Hollywood footage. Just because it happened before some of us were born doesn’t necessarily make it truer…
LikeLike
Something supernatural occurring to me in the here and now would probably have an effect on me. Seeing someone raised from the dead in the here and now…(gone and buried three days) etc…
The same is true for my inability to “believe” in ghosts and aliens…(though i tend to think aliens to be the most statistically probable of the three… 😉 )
An experience with a ghost, that was tested or an alien encounter, or a healing that was by all accounts supernatural (not cancer going into remission or all the stuff that happens whether you pray or not)
LikeLike
What about an event you didn’t personally witness? After all, most events in the universe happen without you (or me) personally being there.
LikeLike
Well, if someone else told me about their encounter being abducted by aliens. I would have to factor in a lot of things. How well i knew this person, their history with drugs, alcohol, and mushrooms, dreams/visions/ , and reliability with other things in their life. (do they usually tell the truth?) motives…etc.
I wouldn’t just accept it because someone else said it…
And something as serious as miracles happening that might link to a belief in god…is a pretty big deal. I would certainly investigate. (and i have on several) And probably will continue to do so. For many things have been built on lies, and have been used to deceive, and empty the pockets of others…those need debunking. I don’t readily dismiss things without effort though.
LikeLike
If my late brother walked into my home tomorrow…yeah, that I would consider supernatural.
Who wouldn’t?
LikeLike
Focus (or read?). We’re discussing a supernatural event at some point in *history*.
LikeLike
I think considering how long ago he passed I would consider a reappearance quite historical.
Why should it be considered less historical or less news worthy then Jesus or dragons or witches?
The latter are relevant only to those who either /saw or were personally involved with the subject.
The fact that my late brother is not known by anyone here in blogsville means jack shit regarding what constitutes a supernatural event.
And that was the question was it not?
”Dear readers, I would like to ask you, for I am unsure, what would you accept as sufficient evidence for a supernatural event at some point in history?”
And I responded with what I would consider evidence of such an event.
Would you have been happier if I had said JFK or Jimi Hendrix?
LikeLike
quote you: “tomorrow”
LikeLike
And? Iit is a reappearance. Or are you merely suggesting the validity is determined on how far back in history we go? If I kept the tale to myself for six months then already we have some ‘history.’
What If I had said he appeared yesterday?
Or…two days after he died?
LikeLike
And if you had said JFK or Jimi Hendrix, I wouldn’t believe you, because we would all jump to the conclusion it was cloning (assuming they were the age they died).
LikeLike
The I do not understand the point of the post? You seem to be narrowing down the parameters until they meet certain criteria …whatever those criteria are?
Dragons are supernatural/natural believable. A JFK appearance isn’t?
Then how can we even consider a Jesus appearance ?
LikeLike
No, that’s fine. If you think something happening tomorrow counts as a supernatural event in history, and if you don’t think you’d question a scientific reason for JFK making a reappearance, that’s your opinion. The point was to gauge opinion. Consider yours gauged. There’s a post two back that you’ve declined to comment on, and several pretty pictures you’ve ignored. Don’t expect me to be nice to you.
LikeLike
It’ll be history in two days time is the point.
The real point, of course , is should we believe in anything so-called supernatural? Me. No, not really.
Oh, and are you taking ‘Obtuse lessons’ from P&W?
I did not comment on the gender equality post, as It would only lead to a ‘row’ and there were enough comments that echoed my own thoughts in any case.
Consider that topic closed until I post another sexy picture.
I am not ignoring the photos. Merely because I not espousing platitudes doesn’t mean I don’t look or I don’t like.
LikeLike
What’s wrong with a row? I know you’re sick of losing, but one day it might help you might admit you’re wrong. No-one commented on the photo in the gender inequality post, which is a shame. It’s an unusual and very cool shot.
LikeLike
I am not going to point score with you.
As I mentioned, some of the comments reflect my own view adequately enough.
If you are only blogging to garner comments then put up a sex post…. with pictures. Works every time.
LikeLike
(not going to point score cos your points are embarrassingly low – I understand, don’t worry) 🙂
LikeLike
At least I always get on the score sheet…whereas you, I’m afraid….hmmm
But, as you say best move on….No more T& A for a while until your blood pressure settles, okay?
LikeLike
Spammed …
LikeLike
And yes, it is a wonderful shot. What is the insect?
LikeLike
Thanks Ark! 🙂 They’re ladybirds of some sort. In Spanish here they are ‘little Saint Anthony cows’.
LikeLike
I thought so but wasn’t 100% We get yellow ones like this over here too.
LikeLike
Spammed …
LikeLike
The same I ask of science: reproducibility in controlled conditions.
LikeLike
For historical events? Is there anything that would give you pause for thought?
LikeLike
Well, I would accept the same kind of evidence I accept for regular historical events. For example, if we found several records of plagues in Egypt reproducing exactly those of the Old Testament from 10 or 20 different sources, that may give me pause.
LikeLike
Really? You wouldn’t assume there was a natural explanation?
LikeLike
I probably would. But if twenty different sources said “the seas parted before him” I’d have to consider the possibility. That said, I am convinced that will never happen.
LikeLike
Hi David. In fact it might have happened. There are ways in which water can withdraw from a not-too-deep sea basin; or the bottom might rise up in an earthquake, causing a land bridge; or similar. Apparently the Mediterranean basin wasn’t always as geologically inactive as now. I vaguely recall hearing about such events there within human history, but further back than the purported time frame of the OT. Then again we’re not sure how well they counted time. “Sunrise, sunset…”
LikeLike
Dragon sightings are a common and much more universal cultural phenomenon, than almost any other sort of supernatural phenomenon. But the concept of dragons varies between different cultures in high degrees. When the 8th century monks told there had been dragon sightings in the north and drew the link between them as an ill omen, that the vikings would start their raiding it was symbolically evil. To the ancient Chinese the dragons were symbols of natural forces. Not only as enemies, but also as beneficiaries. And so on. But just as with the monks mentioned earlierly, it is typical for human nature to make the link in hindsight. The dragons seen as an omen about the vikings, it was a futile prediction as even after seeing it, people had no idea what it was an omen about. Same goes for us to think that the concept of the dragon in English language really has anything to do with the same concept in Chinese. Only in hindsight can we draw the connection between gargantuan flying reptilians such the Chinese dragons, European dragons, Quatzecoatl of the Aztecs and perhaps the actual Quetzacotalus northropi, that lived in the Cretaceous period. The descriptions of dragons vary from the many headed hydra, to the crawling snake of the Visconti coat of arms and to the feathered snake of the Aztecs, but we tend to think they are the same, because we think we can recognize them despite the differencies. Why? Because, we tend to see patterns where there are none and because we tend to invent similar stories. We are not that different. But that does not really reveal these stories to be true.
For us to assume, that any of the historical claims about surpernatural are true, we would have to be able to examine something to be supernatural at all. Supernatural is a concept, that deliberately avoids scientific examination, in the sense, that supernatural is supposed to be outside the natural universe. Science examines only the natural universe. But for anything we call supernatural to have any meaning to us, it has to interfere with the natural universe, and those interferences we should be able to examine through science.
However, science has never verified any supernatural events, or effects of the assumed supernatural to the material universe. On the contrary, we have an abundance of alledgedly supernatural causes to natural events, that have been proven to be perfectly natural. There are also things we have not been able to explain by our current level of science, but there is no particular reason, other than to cling on to the cultural traditions from beyond time, when we did not have science to satisfy our curiosity, to actually believe any of the mysteries we have not yet resolved was caused by supernatural causes.
All in all, anything we would like to call supernatural seems like a perfectly human way to makebelief like we understood the cause and effect, in a situation we have no information about what really is going on. A bit childish approach, but an understandable one, as it has become such a wide cultural tradition in so many cultures, that people do not recognize it as what it really is. It is offered to us as knowledge based on the authority of our parents, cultural heritage and in many cases, an organisation with effective political powerstructure, much money and influence in the society.
In this light there is no reasonable reason to take anything in the historical accounts as sufficient evidence for supernatural. Historicity is a technical term about what is considered as most likely true. No supernatural story meets the requirements for such a level of confidence. On the contrary. They are based on the idea of faith. That people should believe in them regardless, if they have sufficient evidence to back them up, or not.
LikeLike
holy cows…rautakyy
that was a brilliant answer…
LikeLike
(entice him over to your blog, his input is unmissable and unbeatable!)
LikeLike
rautakyy you are SOOO invited to my blog…for your “inmissable and unbeatable” input! 😀
(or by entice…violet…did you have something else in mind? :D)
LikeLike
Of course! You should provide coffee/alcohol/sweets. That’s what you meant, right?
LikeLike
I agree with you that before we can accept historical evidence for the supernatural we must first have evidence that the supernatural exists at all. I think we have very good reason to believe that phenomena exist that cannot be satisfactorally explained in purely naturalistic terms, things like qualia, reason, and morality. But whether you accept that or not, I think your point is excellent. First we must attempt to discover whether miracles can happen, period. Until then we can’t properly judge the historical evidence.
LikeLike
Thank you holly and Mark Hamilton. We do have a number of phenomena, that can not be explained. Or rather, to wich the naturalistic explanation at the moment is, that we simply do not know how these work. Like some of the grand cosmological questions, but qualia, reason and morality have been explained quite reasonably in naturalistic terms. These three are the obvious products of neurochemical evolution. Reason and morality are obvious products of natural selection as survival mechanisms of a number of social species. Qualia is more like a byproduct of the process.
As long as we do not have a natualistic explanation to any phenomena we can not just assert a supernatural explanation. This is because every supernatural explanation we have researched and have had any reliable results on, have been proven not to be supernatural at all, but natural phenomenons – like the lightning.
LikeLike
I’ve heard the naturalistic explanations for reasoning and qualia, and I’m not impressed. I don’t think that human reasoning can ever be explained in terms of purely material causes; if it could, we would have no reason to trust our reasoning. But other people have made that argument a lot better than I can. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about the article I’ll link below.
LikeLike
Wow, that’s a surprise! I thought you would be arguing about it, like PeW.
LikeLike
Well PeW prefers to jump right into the historical approach, and I prefer to look at the broader worldview questions first. We’re all made different and I can’t say my process is better than his. I think the historical record has excellent evidence for the historicity of the resurrection, but I also understand that history is not an empirical science. If someone reports a dragon sighting we must be very skeptical of that report because we have extremely good reasons to believe that dragons do not exist. But if we found reason today to believe dragons existed (say, we discovered a dragon hiding somewhere) then we would judge the reliability of those reports in a very different light. Similarly, if we believe that the supernatural does not exist then we would not accept any reports, no matter how probable, of a supernatural event occurring in the past. It is only after we answer the question “does the supernatural exist” that we can judge whether reports of the supernatural are likely to be accurate or not. As long as you don’t believe in the supernatural, I don’t see how I could convince you that the New Testament accounts are reliable. If anyone can I bet PeW could, and I wish him all the luck in the world, but I don’t really see it happening at this point.
LikeLike
Thank you Mark Hamilton for the interresting link. I am not a determinist as such presented in the article. I think the writer had understood the concept a bit wrong, perhaps a bit deliberately to make a point, but never mind that.
Our neurochemical brains are fully capable of making free choises. That does not require for a supernatural concept to be added to the equasion. Especially, it does not lead to any specific description of the supernatural, even if there exists such a thing. Even if there exists something supernatural, it is of no consequense to us, if we are unable to determine wether it is there, or not. As long as we have no information about it at all, it should not affect our choises, by mere possibility, that it might be there. Now, in the light of historical record of claims of the supernatural, they have all been proven time and time again either as untrue, or been left unverified. We do not make any decision based on the possibility there might be leprechaurns, do we? Nor should we.
It is an obvious evolutionary benefit, that we are able to make individual choises. A fish makes individual choises wether to turn to the right, or left all the time, but it might also be hard wired to make a turn with other fish, if such a reaction was an evolutionary benefit for the survival of the particular species of fish. Our brain is hard wired to do a lot of stuff regardless of our will. But we are able to train our brain from some of the preset reactions. Our cultural heritage molds us to make desicions, that then come culturally to us, but it does not rigidly hard wire us to do so. The cultural traditions manifest in many more advanced species of animals and especially so in humans.
The evolutionary benefit of the individual choises and more complex brain is that the species, wich evolves to have such is more adaptable to various environment. But there is no grand plan in evolution to produce such and it is not the only method of adaptation. It is the combination of free choises made by our ancestors from the very first animals, that were able to perform some sort of choise, the survival of the fittest (species) and the natural condition of the ever changing environment, that has led to the emergence what we now call reason. Free will does not require much reason and certainly it does not require supernatural entities. The supernatural is an assertion by people who had no idea how things come to be, on how the universe works. In their limited perception, they had no idea about evolution and natural forces were the first deities to be bargained with. Cultural evolution, and increasing understanding of the environment has led the supernatural to escape further into the unnatural side of metaphysics.
I do not think the historical record we have about any particular resurrection stories are very reliable. In fact we have better historical data about a number of miraculous stories, we do not take at face value, nor believe in, only because no tradition demands us to have faith in them.
If you are interrested, you might want to take a look what I wrote about this some time ago:
It is quite long, and I will not be offended at all, if you do not find time to read it, but there it is for anyone interrested.
To me the idea, that humans have been created by a supernatural entity to be deserving of an eternal punishment unless they happen to be born into a right culture to be indoctrinated, or unless they happen to be gullible enough to take a particular cultural meme on mere faith even in the obvious lack of evidence is much more “deterministic”, than the fact that we are driven by our natural abilities (such as making choises), desires and traits.
LikeLike
Thanks for the thoughtful response! I’ll have to check out that link later and tell you what I think about it.
My main problem with materialism is that I don’t see how, if the mind is just what the brain does, we could possibly have free will. Our brain is made out of atoms and energy, and atoms and energy don’t get to choose anything. When a molecule reacts with another molecule it doesn’t get to choose exactly how it will react, or choose not to react if it doesn’t want to. When a ball bounces off a wall it doesn’t have a choice on where it will bounce; it will bounce in the exact direction that the laws of physics and geometry demand, based on its kinetic energy, angle of impact, air resistance, etc. I just don’t see how a collection of atoms could ever become complex enough to override the laws of nature and have free will. That is something that has never been observed, and I’ve never heard an argument explaining how that can occur. Most of the arguments I’ve heard for the existence of free will in a materialistic world boil down to “Free will is good for the survival of the species, so evolution developed it over time!” Well that’s fine, but it still doesn’t explain how free will could ever be a possibility in a world made of nothing but matter and energy. It’s kind of like asking “How could miracles exist in a materialistic world?” and getting the answer “Miracles exist because they help the species survive and reproduce, so naturally miracles developed through evolution.” Until I find a satisfactory materialistic explanation for how free will could ever possibly exist, then I’ll have to classify my own free will (and, from there, my reasoning) as a kind of supernatural event. I know the supernatural exists because my mind seems to be capable of reasoning, and thus must have free will (to be able to reason, one must be able to choose), and I cannot see how free will could be produced from a purely materialistic universe.
Of course, I could be all mixed up on that! If you have an argument or explanation that can explain it, I’d love to hear it. And I’ll look at that article sometime today, when I have more time.
LikeLike
Hmm… I think I can symphatize with your problem, though I have never experienced what you are contemplating. Do you see my point about the fish? Do you think the ability of the fish to make the free willed choise to either turn to left, or right (in a situation the fish is not obligated to do so because of some instinctional reaction) requires some form of supernatural ability?
Now, I think that actually there are atheists who actually percieve this a bit like you do. Not that the free will is a result of supernatural, but that actually they think there is some form of naturalistic determinism. I do not agree with them, as you have propably gathered.
I see no conflict between the natural universe and free will. But that of course depends on what you mean by free will. Now, a dice does not represent free will when it rolls, but it follows the physical laws. However, we living creatures are a bit more complicated than that. Of course our decisions are results of a complex variety of reasons. But we are free agents and we make conclusions according to what information we have. While the fish may make a informed decision to turn to left instead of right because of threat from the right or because there is food on the left side, but even a fish might choose to turn to the right as an alternative choise. The fish is much more dependant on the instincts of fear and hunger, than animals with more complex brains, like us humans. The more complex the brain is, the less is the animal dependant on the basic instincts. Human and our close relatives, like the apes are aware of themselves and able to make more complex conclusions about the environment.
The cause of the free will seems quite obviously to be the result of evolution, as different animals present different levels of free will in correlation to the complexity of their brains. However, even if we did not know what the reason for the free will was, I do not think we would be justified in asserting it is the result of something supernatural. The correct answer would simply be that we do not know. Unless of course, supernatural is simply synonumous to the unknown, but then the entire concept of supernatural is futile, becaus we can call the unknown – the unknown.
LikeLike
Well, I think we may be talking past each other a bit. My problem is that I don’t see how combinations of atoms, no matter how complex, could ever produce the capacity to choose. Choosing implies choice, after all, and atoms do not get choices. They must follow the laws of nature. Saying that free will is the result of evolution does not explain it. Yes, having the capacity to choose freely should help species survive. But it would also help us survive if we could summon food into existence from nothing, or rise from the grave. If people could do those things and someone said “If all that exists is atoms and energy then how are these things possible?” it wouldn’t do much good to answer “Well obviously it’s the result of evolution.” The question at hand is how these events are possible at all, not whether they would are produced by evolution. If all there is to existence is matter and energy then free will should be impossible, because matter and energy must follow the laws of nature. If we do have free will then that would imply that there is more to this universe than matter and energy, there is something else that exists. Perhaps we can call this something “mind” or “choice”, but whatever it is I would still call it supernatural. For me, nature is matter, energy, and the laws that guide them. Anything other than that is supernatural.
LikeLike
Atoms do not walk, run or swim either, but their combinations are fully capable of these functions. Similarly the combinations of atoms are capable of making decisions. All of this is happens under the observable laws of the material universe. There are no laws of the material universe broken by combinations of atoms (such as the fish brain, or human brain) making decisions.
LikeLike
Yes, there are. Listen, I agree with you that fish and people seem to make decisions. But nobody has yet explained to me how it would ever be possible for matter and energy to ever be in such a state that they can ignore the laws of nature and choose their own reactions to stimuli. If all the laws of the material universe are followed then we have no free will. Everything is just reactions to stimuli, and those reactions are governed by the laws of nature. If I hit a billiard ball with a pool cue it doesn’t get to decide how far it wants to roll, or in what direction. Even if I make the billiard ball incredibly more complicated, it will still be made of matter and react accordingly to stimuli. So at what point does matter gain the ability to choose how it will react, instead of following the laws of nature?
LikeLike
So, do you think that the fish make decisions because of some “supernatural” force within the fish?
The universe is full of seemingly random events. All of these are under the laws of nature. Agreed? A computer may have a randomising engine, wich effectively “throws dices” billions of times in a minute. The results are at the same time random (as in not directly predictable) and under the laws of physics. The brain of the fish works in similar ways. Only it is much more advanced than the computers we now build. It is not a separate entity inside cyberspace, but reacts to stimuli and memory (both conscious and subcounscious) at the same time it makes these seemingly random choises of it’s own will.
Most of our actions and the actions of the fish are informed by the environment, but when the environment ceases to give us direct stimulation, we do not stop action. Our actions and the actions of the fish are simultaneously informed by billions of different sources, like our hormonal state, basic instincts, cultural heritage, personal preferences we have aquired, and all that baggage we carry around from our past in our subconscious. And of course that very, very complex randomizing engine in our brains. And the interaction of these components causes the free will we have. That the person we are, or what personality a single fish has, causes us and that fish to act in a certain way.
This is not determinism as such, because the interactions within the brain of each indiviual are so complex and have that random element to them, that in especially the case of us more neurally advanced animals, they give only a limited possibility to predict how an individual will turn out in the future, nor what her/his choises shall ever be. No magic, or supernatural (what people generally understand by those terms at least) is ever required.
LikeLike
I agree that the universe is full of “seemingly” random events. But the point is that, while these events seem random, they are not. Take dice, for instance. If you throw a pair of dice it appears that you will get a random number between 2 and 12. However, this number is not random. As soon as the dice leave your hands their result could be predicted if you had enough knowledge and time. The speed and angle at which they are falling, the properties of the surface they will land on, the properties of the material they are made of, etc. If someone knew all of the relevant information and calculated it out they could tell you exactly which numbers those dice would come up as. Why? Because they must follow the laws of nature.
Your assumption seems to be that if something is complex enough it can produce random events. But if everything follows the laws of nature than nothing can be truly random. Even a random number generator in a computer is not random: it follows exact rules that lead it to create a number that appears random to the person using it, but could be predicted if you knew all the nature of the rules the computer was using and the state the computer is currently in. Your argument only holds weight if it can be shown that anything that occurs in the universe can be truly random. If random events can happen, and random events can only happen if the laws of nature are not being followed.
LikeLike
Well, all that of course, depends on what is your definition of “random”. None of the events we usually call random, and for wich that word is useful in practical terms, is predestined in the way, that anyone, or anything, made a conscious choise for it to follow, but yes they are all the result of the laws of the universe affecting material atoms. For most of them it is impossible for us to aquire enough information to make any practical predictions how they are going to end up.
Your perception of your free will, is the result of neither you, nor anyone else, having enough information about you, or your environment, that they could make usefull predictions about your choises.
We are able to make a good deal of predictions about our fellow human beings and the choises they are going to make with their “free will”. Even if we only know the cultural heritage and one, or two personal preferences of a person, it is possible to make predictions about what choises this chap is likely to make. All sorts of palm readers, tele-evangelists and other charlatans rely on this sort of predictability. If we know more about a person, like the personality, temper, a good number of childhood events, upbinging, and most personal preferences the perdictability gets ever better, but it is very hard to know so much about a person, that one could actually predict what a person does in every possible situation. Correct? Is that not what we call the “free will” of the person?
I have allready established how the perception of free will, or i.e. the ability to make both informed and intuitive individual choises is formed through a complex system of natural processes in the neural systems, by information from the immidiate environment and as a reaction to stimuli, with the help of memories, subconscious memories, and the randomizing engine of intuition. In ways wich do not brake any of the natural laws. Yes?
The complexity of the neural systems is only important, in the sense, that it makes the predictability more difficult. If we are to determine wether a fish is going to turn left or right, the predictions we could make about, that individual choise are at 50% even by making pure guesses, but anything more complicated than that, the predictability rate gets worse in extremely steep rate. Correct?
To me, it seems, it would be impossible for us to determine wether our choises are the result of the inevitable movement of atoms, or the result of supernatural forces at play. Exept, that natural things like atoms we are aware of, but we have no actual knowledge about anything supernatural, and anything ever claimed to be supernatural we have investigated, has either been proven to be part of the natural world, or has been left in the state of not yet explainable. To my knowledge, nothing has been established to be reliably supernatural. Supernatural is a concept invented by primitive cultures to describe, andopomorphize and to bargain with the natural forces they could not possibly have had enough information about to explain in the terms of reality.
Do you think there is some higher level of free will perhaps? Could you give an example of what sort of conscious choise are you referring to, when you think the free will had to brake the laws of nature, in order for a fish, a rabbit, or a human being to make this choise?
Sure, if there existed an entity, that had all the knowledge, it could make such predictions, as to wich you refer to, but we have no indication, that any such entities actually do exist. For humans it is quite impossible. And in the lack of existance of any such knowledge, you can revel in your perception of you making the choises. Or not knowing beforehand wich number is the dice going to yield.
LikeLike
I have to add to that, that you are the sum of your genes, heritage, experiences, memory, subconscious and the choises you made informed by these either by conscious choise, or by your intuition. That is on what you build your indentity and on wich you make the choises either as a reaction to stimuli from outside your person, or from within. How does this brake any of the laws of nature?
LikeLike