I posit that the SD should take pink unicorns as seriously as religion

[Fortean]

Quick proviso – I am a Christian, albeit a very bad Christian. Alongside my hefty God-shaped hole (no sniggering) is, for my sins, a hole into which all kinds of woo-woo stuff like aliens ghosts mothmen seamonsters stone circles FNORD Freddie Mercury conspiracies etc etc fit perfectly. But as you can tell from my username, I prefer not to be an out–and-out believer but apply at least the semblance of rationality. Here’s a good definition of a Fortean (from http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/fortean-faq.html):

“A Fortean is more properly a ‘zetetic’ - when it comes to paranormal phenomenon ‘X,’ they neither believe in X nor believe in not-X. Rather, they choose to suspend belief altogether. One can collect instances of X irregardless of whether one ultimately feels X can be proven to be folklore, deception, hoax, illusion, or ‘true,’ whatever that means.”

In short, in the Church of the Weird, Forteans are the Unitarians.

Anyway. Once upon a time, very often when someone started a thread on the SD about religion some close-minded atheist (note: not your ordinary atheist, who is usually lovely and very polite) arrive and post something along the lines of the following (note: extreme clichéd response follows):

God doesn’t exist, so there’s no point debating this.

But then everyone realised that religion could be discussed rationally and there wouldn’t have to be any laying on of hands per se and to admit to the existence of God in the field of debate didn’t mean you had to believe in him all the time.

Now, personally I’d really like for the same kind of thing to happen with subjects that aren’t as high-falutin’ as religion but just as likely to divide people into believers and non-believers. I think it would be ace if someone comes along and starts a thread thus:

I saw a pink unicorn out of the window this morning. Whatever do you think it is?

I’d like the answer to be:

1. It was a hallucination.
2. You’re a lunatic.
3. It was a plastic toy of some kind.
4. You’re lying to us.
5. **It was some kind of phenomena that science hasn’t got round to explaining yet. **

You may consider that debating God is very different from debating, say, ghosts, because ghosts are silly and God is only silly occasionally. And this is mostly true. However, I would argue that:

1. There are many ‘supernatural’ things attached to religion that many Christians believe in, such as the Toronto Blessing and stigmata. Even feeling that God is near you could be described as a supernatural feeling (and debunked in the way God himself cannot be debunked).

2. Fortean stuff such as ghosts can sometimes be deep and meaningful. To quote Scully, my favourite sceptic:

That we can ignore all natural laws about the corporeal body that we witness these spirits clad in their own shabby outfits with the same old haircuts and hairstyles never aging, never in search of more comfortable surroundings – it actually ends up saying more about the living than it does about the dead. It doesn’t take an advanced degree in psychology to understand the unconscious yearnings that these imaginings satisfy. You know, the longing for immortality the hope that there is something beyond this mortal coil – that we might never be long without our loved ones.

I know this has been debated loads of times before and got ugly on several occasions, so please be civil. This is just a suggestion for debate – by no means do I want to turn the venerable sceptical SD into a Fortean message board (we’ve already got one of those!).

Anyway, what do you think?

[SentientMeat]

@Fortean

5. It was some kind of phenomena that science hasn’t got round to explaining yet.

Science only deals with physical phenomena and natural explanations. The supernatural and nonphysical are outwith its scope.

Even in the cases of ghosts, divine interventions and magical equines, science can only examine the physical consequences thereof. If it can explain those physical phenomena without reference to those supernatural entities, science merely says that their existence is unnecessary, not disproven.

Personally, my working conclusion is that there is largely no physical phenomenon for which the natural explanation is so lacking that it leaves room for a supernatural entity in the gap, including even personal divine experiences like I have had myself. In the case of ghosts and magical equines, one must ask whether there really is a physical phenomenon there to explain at all.

[Mangetout]

If someone asserts their genuine investment in a supernatural phenomenon, I’d hope the assertion would be treated uniformly regardless of whether the phenomenon related to established religious ideas, or intangible cerise equines.

Otherwise, the IPU thing needs to be treated as what it is in that particular context, which can be anything between helpful and useful illustration or analogy, right through to angry, sarcastic and possibly irrelevant potshot.

[Menocchio]

The difference between God and many Fortean phenomena is that God is never directly observed, only experienced. That is, one may feel God’s love, or even recieve a vision from God, but very seldom (in this day and age, anyway) does God leave the kind of footprint than can be recorded. Heck, even the Bible notes that some observers to a miracle do not believe or see what’s happening. Because you cannot be expected to bring evidence of God’s existance, it is churlish to question someone’s experience. Just because God isn’t scientifically observable doesn’t mean He can’t be discussed logically, so even if you don’t believe, it can be interesting to debate His nature and wishes.

A pink unicorn, however, well, if it was real you could photgraph it. It would leave some evidence of its passing (some pink hairs on a branch, hoofprints, that sort of thing). Others besides you should have been expected to see it. It’s not just something that’s felt, it’s something that has a real, verifiable presence. No one should be so close-minded as to deny evidence when it’s given, but they should still demand evidence of as of yet unproven physical phenomena.

[Polycarp]

@SentientMeat

Science only deals with physical phenomena and natural explanations. The supernatural and nonphysical are outwith its scope.

Even in the cases of ghosts, divine interventions and magical equines, science can only examine the physical consequences thereof. If it can explain those physical phenomena without reference to those supernatural entities, science merely says that their existence is unnecessary, not disproven.

Personally, my working conclusion is that there is largely no physical phenomenon for which the natural explanation is so lacking that it leaves room for a supernatural entity in the gap, including even personal divine experiences like I have had myself. In the case of ghosts and magical equines, one must ask whether there really is a physical phenomenon there to explain at all.

That is a pretty fair summation of the issue, SM. But let me observe a few things:

1. “Science” is a methodology for examining the causes of phenomena in an inductive, phenomenological way. It is not, necessarily, delimited to the physical sciences. It’s much like psychobiology: if your methodology is to delimit the universe of discourse to a given set of stimuli and responses, you’re fine as far as you admit your presumptions. But to draw conclusions metaphysically beyond your self-imposed limitations is quite simply to beg the question. You may not assume that the Universe consists entirely of the physical phenomena accessible to humans aided by instruments, then use that to prove that the Universe consists entirely of the physical phenomena accessible to humans aided by instruments.

2. There is a difference in kind between a God worthy of the name, one which created and is ontologically prior to the physical Universe, and the various supposed supernatural phenomena that are often equated with Him in such discussions. As I once said in another thread, I no more believe in the Magical Sky Pixie than the most sincere atheist here. If God is anything, He is other than an entity within the physical Universe.

3. It follows that a methodology for investigating claims made about Him needs to be devised. But it cannot and should not make presumptions appropriate to the physical sciences. They have their province of inquiry, and this is, by definition, a quite separate one.

The reason you don’t see much about the I.P.U. any more is owing to a merger: they’re now part of the Universalist Unicornian Association!

[Hoodoo_Ulove]

Pink unicorns are invisible. The internet says it, I believe it, end of story.

[SentientMeat]

Well, Poly, I’d still suggest that (1.) science seeks to explain even the metaphysical in terms of the physical (Cartesian dualism being dismissed by every notable cognitive scientist I know of), (2.) There is no such thing as the “creation of” or “before” or “prior to” the universe, and (3.) if something doesn’t possibly even have some effect on the physical universe for which a scientific investigation is appropriate, frankly, why bother? But that is perhaps not quite what the OP addresses.

[Fortean]

Excellent responses, thanks! Gonna do that multiple quote thing now, sorry about that.

SentientMeat:

Personally, my working conclusion is that there is largely no physical phenomenon for which the natural explanation is so lacking that it leaves room for a supernatural entity in the gap, including even personal divine experiences like I have had myself. In the case of ghosts and magical equines, one must ask whether there really is a physical phenomenon there to explain at all.

Yes, the whole neurological thing (the link you give regarding your divine experiences) is a doozy, isn’t it. There still is the lesser-known (because far less experienced) folie a deux thing going on too. I’m actually quite fond of the idea of everything originating from the self – not that the self itself can’t do supernatural things, of course.

**Mangetout: **

If someone asserts their genuine investment in a supernatural phenomenon, I’d hope the assertion would be treated uniformly regardless of whether the phenomenon related to established religious ideas, or intangible cerise equines.

Me too. But often it isn’t. See my ‘1. You’re lying. 2. You’re mad’ type response up above; I have seen a real-life example of this, only without point five. I would prefer people to ascribe more importance – maybe a kind of proof – to certain personal experiences (that go outside your personal experience, and common sense (if some describes an event which bears all the hallmarks of sleep paralysis, I’m not going to claim it’s anything else) so that, in short, we can all be a bit more civil.
**Menocchio: **

The difference between God and many Fortean phenomena is that God is never directly observed, only experienced. That is, one may feel God’s love, or even recieve a vision from God, but very seldom (in this day and age, anyway) does God leave the kind of footprint than can be recorded.

So (to be really obnoxious) what of the miracles in the Bible/Koran, etc? On can still be a believer without believing in miracles, but the miracles are an important part of that belief, I feel. I think certain Fortean phenomena can be experienced, personally. See Sentient Meat’s link about. A neurological effect is not observed, but experienced.

A pink unicorn, however, well, if it was real you could photograph it. It would leave some evidence of its passing (some pink hairs on a branch, hoofprints, that sort of thing). Others besides you should have been expected to see it. It’s not just something that’s felt, it’s something that has a real, verifiable presence.

But what if, for example, although it looked to you like a pink unicorn it ‘felt’ like your dead grandmother, say, with all the memories and emotion that brings up, and although there is no proof, there is no way all those emotions etc could have been brought up without her presence? The experience of something is often more ‘provable’ than the visualisation, because it is more vivid, perhaps.

From **Poly ** (yay! I should post in GD more often if I get a reply from Poly)

There is a difference in kind between a God worthy of the name, one which created and is ontologically prior to the physical Universe, and the various supposed supernatural phenomena that are often equated with Him in such discussions.

True, especially when we get all conceptual and abstract and high-brow. However, faith (a big part of God, if you’re getting that abstract) in some instances, depends upon all kinds of Virgin Maries in pancakes and Toronto Blessings and modern-day miracles. What then?

Back to Sentient Meat

(3.) if something doesn’t possibly even have some effect on the physical universe for which a scientific investigation is appropriate, frankly, why bother? But that is perhaps not quite what the OP addresses.

It’s a strange contradiction – there’s nothing believers desire more than scientific proof. But once something is proved, it’s no longer supernatural, therefore worth believing in. And, really, science is the last thing you want.

I’m still interested in the neurological thing, though. Did God create our brains so that they would go haywire every so often and really Believe? The experiences (I have been told) of temporal lobe epilepsy, the cause (probably) of most religious experiences are so extraordinary, it’s hard to believe they themselves aren’t more significant.

[Voyager]

@Fortean

Me too. But often it isn’t. See my ‘1. You’re lying. 2. You’re mad’ type response up above; I have seen a real-life example of this, only without point five. I would prefer people to ascribe more importance – maybe a kind of proof – to certain personal experiences (that go outside your personal experience, and common sense (if some describes an event which bears all the hallmarks of sleep paralysis, I’m not going to claim it’s anything else) so that, in short, we can all be a bit more civil.

Lying is an option because, unfortunately, that must be considered. The reason that magicians are better than scientists at investigating psychics is because scientists assume that nature doesn’t lie, and magicians know people do. But there is a difference between someone saying “I thought I saw an IPU” and “I did see an IPU.” I’d tend to trust the former statement more, since it includes the possibility of a delusion. Another way - someone saying “aliens took me away” is different from someone saying “I had what seemed like a dream about aliens taking me away,” to use your sleep paralysis example.

So (to be really obnoxious) what of the miracles in the Bible/Koran, etc? On can still be a believer without believing in miracles, but the miracles are an important part of that belief, I feel. I think certain Fortean phenomena can be experienced, personally. See Sentient Meat’s link about. A neurological effect is not observed, but experienced.

I tend to believe in what people say they experience, but sometimes what they say they observe. But experience is testable against reality, to some extent. If ten people experience ten different monotheistic gods, we might conclude that while they all experienced something, only one at most actually had contact with something outside his skull.

It’s a strange contradiction – there’s nothing believers desire more than scientific proof. But once something is proved, it’s no longer supernatural, therefore worth believing in. And, really, science is the last thing you want.

I think it very possible, in theory, to get solid evidence of the supernatural while maintaining it as supernatural. If someone could repeatably create matter from nothing, with no energy input, say. (Loaves and fishes, anyone?) This magic might have rules while staying supernatural - the stories from Unknown in the 1940’s were like this. The interesting thing is the lack of evidence of any such phenomena - and that includes religious phenomena. I think the possibility of finding the physical evidence of the supernatural, including god, is a more telling argument against its existence than if it were impossible to find.

You don’t see many Forteans around these days. I own and have read all four books (the paperback versions from the '60s.) Are they even still in print?

[RaftPeople]

@Fortean

Here’s a good definition of a Fortean (from http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/fortean-faq.html):

“A Fortean is more properly a ‘zetetic’ - when it comes to paranormal phenomenon ‘X,’ they neither believe in X nor believe in not-X. Rather, they choose to suspend belief altogether. One can collect instances of X irregardless of whether one ultimately feels X can be proven to be folklore, deception, hoax, illusion, or ‘true,’ whatever that means.”

Nitpick and tangent all rolled into one:
I can’t help but get a chuckle from a “.edu” website using the word “irregardless”

[SentientMeat]

I’m still interested in the neurological thing, though. Did God create our brains so that they would go haywire every so often and really Believe? The experiences (I have been told) of temporal lobe epilepsy, the cause (probably) of most religious experiences are so extraordinary, it’s hard to believe they themselves aren’t more significant.

First, let us not assume that God created our brains but, like the brains of chimps, birds, lizards and even insects, they are the result of billions of years of evolution. Secondly “belief” is to some extent how they function as a computer which confirms hypotheses based on sensory information and memory: I speak not specifically of belief in God but of belief in general, such as “I believe that patch of ground is somehow hazardous and best avoided” or “I believe that the rains are imminent”. To form beliefs, we have regions of our brain which judge significance, such as the parahippocampal gyrus.

The ‘neurological thing’, as I understand it, is the hypothesis that when our significance-judgement mechanisms temporarily malfunction, we might experience a feeling of incredible significance which might be descibed as cosmic or divine. There is also evidence, I understand, that if the activity in the two temporal lobes (one in each half of the brain) get a little out of sync, a feeling of “another self” (ie. “someone else in our heads”) arises. In temporal lobe epilepsy, the significance-judgement mechanisms do go haywire, and the activity in the two lobes does show some odd synchronicity.