# What can we say about the Supernatural **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 2, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103 "2006-01-02T18:57:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/201 "2006-01-10T21:54:44Z")
> [@Grey Mauser](#): > > Doesn’t seem that a “natural god” should be impossible, but it would be a rather thin and unsatisfying god as gods go. It would be lacking in so many of the really cool god-tools: no omnipresence, no omnipotence, having miracles limited by physical constraints, and one wonders how it could create the universe if it were a part of that universe. Again, you’re mistaking a definition for a property. If an entity exists everywhere in the universe at once, then that’s a natural property of that entity. If an entity knows everything, then that’s a natural property of that entity. In no way would a natural God be less capable, less powerful, than another God, according to how I’m using the words. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Grey\_Mauser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ac91a4/32.png) [@Grey\_Mauser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey_Mauser)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/202 "2006-01-10T22:20:09Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Again, you’re mistaking a definition for a property. If an entity exists everywhere in the universe at once, then that’s a natural property of that entity. If an entity knows everything, then that’s a natural property of that entity. > > In no way would a natural God be less capable, less powerful, than another God, according to how I’m using the words. > > Daniel Eh? How am I mistaking? Doesn’t the definition define the properties? A “natural god” whould have to be limited by the rules of the natural world. Which means that, for example, it cannot have a consciousness that is omnipresent, which would require information being propagated faster than light. The existence of an entity that “exists everywhere in the universe at once” because “that’s a natural property of that entity”, requires that an entity actually be able to have that property. What we know about the natural world says that entities cannot. This seems a little like Humpty Dumpty semantics; defining a supernatural god and then saying “that’s what I mean when I use the word ‘natural’” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/203 "2006-01-10T22:38:52Z")
> [@Grey Mauser](#): > > Eh? How am I mistaking? Doesn’t the definition define the properties? A “natural god” whould have to be limited by the rules of the natural world. Which means that, for example, it cannot have a consciousness that is omnipresent, which would require information being propagated faster than light. No: the natural world is defined by the observable properties of what’s in it. If a being has an omnipresent consciousness, then our theory that nothing moves faster than light is flawed. > [@](#): > > The existence of an entity that “exists everywhere in the universe at once” because “that’s a natural property of that entity”, requires that an entity actually be able to have that property. What we know about the natural world says that entities cannot. Then (assuming such a being) what we know about the natural world is wrong. > [@](#): > > This seems a little like Humpty Dumpty semantics; defining a supernatural god and then saying “that’s what I mean when I use the word ‘natural’” Nothing like. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/204 "2006-01-10T22:45:41Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Your question has led me to maybe a better definition of supernatural. > > If we found telepathy particles, for instance, then telepathy becomes natural. Things can move from one domain to another, as they have throughout history. The telepathy particles are hiding in the same place as the sight/smell/hearing and other sensory perception particles are hiding. I do believe in telepathy, however I don’t think that it works by the ways people want it to work. Brains emit radiation, and other brains are capable of perceiving that radiation. However, there are compatibility issues with the way people organize their thoughts that make it more difficult for another person to decode the thoughts of another. Like all the other senses, it works in tandem with the senses, so things like cold reading, rather than being able to explain away telepathy are a part of the telepathic process. > [@](#): > > I’d want to keep the part of the definition about violating natural laws also, to make sure no one thinks unexplained is equivalent to supernatural. You are conflating metaphysical and supernatural. Metaphysical properties are properties that are not limited to a particular time or place. An idea doesn’t have physical properties, but it can affect the physical world. It can be made physical. This does not make an idea ‘supernatural’, though it is metaphysical. I feel like you WANT to not believe in God, and that this clouds your judgement of the issue. There is no reason that God needs to be unnatural. If God exists then God is perfectly natural. You are just proposing a definition of God that supports atheism, because you want atheism to be correct. Letting your definitions lead you to a conclusion that you want to make, is not the basis of science. For me, we are sharing thoughts across vast distances of space using a machine to transmit memes using electrons. This is evidence enough of God’s existance. It shows me that the thought process is larger than myself and is transmitted using a corpus that involves many machines and organisms working in concert in order to understand the universe. That is all the evidence I need. The people in this thread collectively as an entity are an intelligence larger than myself. Human beings as a race have radically affected the shape of this planet that we live on, and if we leave it we will radically shape the shape of whatever organizing principle(system) that we inhabit. I don’t see any reason why we have labelled one little chunk of matter, the human brain as being the source of intelligence. That which is being perceived is just as much a part of the perception as that which is doing the perceiving. We are all part of a much larger organism/mechanism that perceives itself. We are right now humanity perceiving itself and other things, in an argument about the semantics of a particular word and how useful it is to describe the world around us. I think that the word is not useful because all it does is add to confusion. I have yet to see a case where the word supernatural engenders understanding. Erek ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/205 "2006-01-10T23:25:09Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I simply dismiss the idea that mystics are more likely to be wrong than other types of people. If you want to say “People were wrong, and other people believed them sometimes even though they were wrong.”, I’ll readily agree with you, but it happens all the time, people are wrong about lots of things. Look at how hard it is to get people to agree about global warming. When we get past the point we are at, and can observe global warming in retrospect, we will sort out who was right and who was wrong, but all of the opinions that don’t accurately forecast global warming will be wrong, yet political decisions are made based upon the predictions of many scientists who will turn out to be wrong. Argument to ignorance. It actually weakens your argument more, your argument was that Ancient Mysticism and Modern Science are working together, scratch a little and even in global warming it is clear that the position against it is the one that is based more on wishful thinking (nothing we can do, we will get by) only a few scientists are in disagreement regarding global warming, usually politicians (many in America) base their opposition to do something about it on reckless mysticism. But getting back to your reply, I noticed that you concentrated on the correction rather than my whole post. > [@mswas](#): > > I simply dismiss the idea that mystics are more likely to be wrong than other types of people. Your attempts to dismiss history are wrong. The fact still remains that it took hundreds of years, but the misleading memes against science were defeated, once the threat of fire and torture were gone, the proponents of mystic explanations lost their best argument. The mystic explanation of disease lead to death of millions in those days, As far as the Church was concerned, the cause of disease was obviously Sin, and the prescribed treatment was prayer, fasting, repentance and perhaps a generous donation. When the plague killed off a third of Europe’s population in the 14th century, there was no accounting for how everyone had sinned, not to mention why it happened at the same time. Leeuwenhoek and Pasteur actually got to find solutions serendipitously, **because they relied less on mystic memes they arrived to better conclusions.** So many examples, but just look at the history of the lighting rod: [http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitek04.html](http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitek04.html) > [@](#): > > In England, the first lightning conductor upon a church was not put up until 1762, ten years after Franklin’s discovery. The spire of St. Bride’s Church in London was greatly injured by lightning in 1750, and in 1764 a storm so wrecked its masonry that it had to be mainly rebuilt; yet for years after this the authorities refused to attach a lightning-rod. The Protestant Cathedral of St. Paul’s, in London, was not protected until sixteen years after Franklin’s discovery, and the tower of the great Protestant church at Hamburg not until a year later still. As late as 1783 it was declared in Germany, on excellent authority, that within a space of thirty-three years nearly four hundred towers had been damaged and one hundred and twenty bell-ringers killed. > > In Roman Catholic countries a similar prejudice was shown, and its cost at times was heavy. In Austria, the church of Rosenberg, in the mountains of Carinthia, was struck so frequently and with such loss of life that the peasants feared at last to attend service. Three times was the spire rebuilt, and it was not until 1778–twenty-six years after Franklin’s discovery–that the authorities permitted a rod to be attached. Then all trouble ceased. > > A typical case in Italy was that of the tower of St. Mark’s, at Venice. In spite of the angel at its summit and the bells consecrated to ward off the powers of the air, and the relics in the cathedral hard by, and the processions in the adjacent square, the tower was frequently injured and even ruined by lightning. In 1388 it was badly shattered; in 1417, and again in 1489, the wooden spire surmounting it was utterly consumed; it was again greatly injured in 1548, 1565, 1653, and in 1745 was struck so powerfully that the whole tower, which had been rebuilt of stone and brick, was shattered in thirty-seven places. Although the invention of Franklin had been introduced into Italy by the physicist Beccaria, the tower of St. Mark’s still went unprotected, and was again badly struck in 1761 and 1762; and not until 1766–fourteen years after Franklin’s discovery–was a lightning-rod placed upon it; and it has never been struck since.[368] > > So, too, though the beautiful tower of the Cathedral of Siena, protected by all possible theological means, had been struck again and again, much opposition was shown to placing upon it what was generally known as “the heretical rod” "but the tower was at last protected by Franklin’s invention, and in 1777, though a very heavy bolt passed down the rod, the church received not the slightest injury. This served to reconcile theology and science, so far as that city was concerned; but the case which did most to convert the Italian theologians to the scientific view was that of the church of San Nazaro, at Brescia. The Republic of Venice had stored in the vaults of this church over two hundred thousand pounds of powder. In 1767, seventeen years after Franklin’s discovery, no rod having been placed upon it, it was struck by lightning, the powder in the vaults was exploded, one sixth of the entire city destroyed, and over three thousand lives were lost.[368b] > > Such examples as these, in all parts of Europe, had their effect. The formulas for conjuring off storms, for consecrating bells to ward off lightning and tempests, and for putting to flight the powers of the air, were still allowed to stand in the liturgies; but the lightning-rod, the barometer, and the thermometer, carried the day. A vigorous line of investigators succeeding Franklin completed his victory, The traveller in remote districts of Europe still hears the church bells ringing during tempests; the Polish or Italian peasant is still persuaded to pay fees for sounding bells to keep off hailstorms; but the universal tendency favours more and more the use of the lightning-rod, and of the insurance offices where men can be relieved of the ruinous results of meteorological disturbances in accordance with the scientific laws of average, based upon the ascertained recurrence of storms. So, too, though many a poor seaman trusts to his charm that has been bathed in holy water, or that has touched some relic, the tendency among mariners is to value more and more those warnings which are sent far and wide each day over the earth and under the sea by the electric wires in accordance with laws ascertained by observation. > > …… > > As if to bid defiance still further to modern liberalism, great store of relics was sent in; among these, pieces of the true cross, of the white and purple robes, of the crown of thorns, sponge, lance, and winding-sheet of Christ,–the hair, robe, veil, and girdle of the Blessed Virgin; relics of St. John the Baptist, St. Joseph, St. Mary Magdalene, St. Paul, St. Barnabas, the four evangelists, and a multitude of other saints: so many that the bare mention of these treasures requires twenty-four distinct heads in the official catalogue recently published at the monastery. Besides all this–what was considered even more powerful in warding off harm from the revived monastery–the bones of Christian martyrs were brought from the Roman catacombs and laid beneath the altars.[371] > > All was thus conformed to the medieval view; nothing was to be left which could remind one of the nineteenth century; the “ages of faith” were to be restored in their simplicity. Pope Leo XIII commended to the brethren the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas as their one great object of study, and works published at the monastery dwelt upon the miracles of St. Honorat as the most precious refutation of modern science. > > High in the cupola, above the altars and relics, were placed the bells. Sent by pious donors, they were solemnly baptized and consecrated in 1871, four bishops officiating, a multitude of the faithful being present from all parts of Europe, and the sponsors of the great tenor bell being the Bourbon claimant to the ducal throne of Parma and his duchess. The good bishop who baptized the bells consecrated them with a formula announcing their efficacy in driving away the “Prince of the Power of the Air” and the lightning and tempests he provokes. > > And then, above all, at the summit of the central spire, high above relics, altars, and bells, was placed–_a lightning-rod_! **mswas** mentioned that ancient literature contains these notions that make mysticism valid because modern science follows from those ancient concepts, problem is the example presented so far by her/him is misleading. The fact remains that the few “mystic” good solutions of the past used today were and are stopped by other mystic solutions even today, a house divided as Jesus would say. (Now why go theological in the end? Just so I can add this amusing Oliver Wendell Holmes reply: ) 🙂 \*"In the 1800s, Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., arrived at a patient’s house one day to find a priest departing. “Your patient is very ill,” said the priest. “He’s going to die.” “Yes,” Dr. Holmes nodded, “and he’s going to Hell.” The priest was horrified. “You mustn’t say such things! I’ve just given him extreme unction!” Holmes shrugged. “Well, since you expressed a medical opinion, I had just as much right to a theological one.”"\* ---
**Author:** ![Grey\_Mauser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ac91a4/32.png) [@Grey\_Mauser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey_Mauser)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/206 "2006-01-10T23:26:45Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Then (assuming such a being) what we know about the natural world is wrong. > > Daniel Well, there is the problem. You’re essentially saying “assuming the world is different from the way we believe it to be, different rules apply”. Its one of those Microsoft-type statements - true but not very helpful 🙂 As far as I can see, either a natural god must be subject to natural laws, or science (and the word “natural”) is meaningless, and anything goes (even though observation says otherwise). Please explain how “natural” the way you mean it is different from “magical”. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/207 "2006-01-10T23:44:39Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > . . . so things like cold reading, rather than being able to explain away telepathy are a part of the telepathic process. So are skilled cold readers who say they are \*not \* telepathic lying or deluded? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/208 "2006-01-10T23:46:18Z")
> [@Grey Mauser](#): > > Well, there is the problem. You’re essentially saying “assuming the world is different from the way we believe it to be, different rules apply”. Its one of those Microsoft-type statements - true but not very helpful 🙂 It’s a truism. As I’ve said repeatedly in this thread, it’s a debate over semantics; I really don’t think we disagree on anything except the preferred use of words. I am really, really unclear on why folks keep trying to argue anythign else with me :). > [@](#): > > As far as I can see, either a natural god must be subject to natural laws, or science (and the word “natural”) is meaningless, and anything goes (even though observation says otherwise). > > Please explain how “natural” the way you mean it is different from “magical”. “Magical” means “describing an action whose intentional consequence contradicts the rules of the universe: a subcategory of nonexistent.” If something occurs, then it’s natural. It’s useful to talk about magic precisely **because** it’s nonexistent. To the best of my knowledge, praying for a stranger’s healing is an example of magical thinking: because the intended consequence is impossible to achieve **as a result of the action** , it’s a specific sort of illogical thinking. In other words, nothign natural is magical, and vice versa. Your question is sort of like asking me to explain how “apple” is different from “automobile.” Daniel ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/209 "2006-01-11T00:03:28Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > For me, we are sharing thoughts across vast distances of space using a machine to transmit memes using electrons. This is evidence enough of God’s existance. Nope, evidence of the former existance of Maxwell. > [@](#): > > I don’t see any reason why we have labelled one little chunk of matter, the human brain as being the source of intelligence. Well, I don’t think so either, we are a produt of our memories too, and if society does not educate us properly, we do indeed find that the human brain is not sole source of intelligence. > [@](#): > > That which is being perceived is just as much a part of the perception as that which is doing the perceiving. We are all part of a much larger organism/mechanism that perceives itself. And the forces of the past (often mystic) are trying their damnest to censor that. > [@](#): > > We are right now humanity perceiving itself and other things, in an argument about the semantics of a particular word and how useful it is to describe the world around us. I think that the word is not useful because all it does is add to confusion. I have yet to see a case where the word supernatural engenders understanding. Looking here, I understand more of what the general definition is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_supernatural\_in\_monotheistic\_religions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_supernatural_in_monotheistic_religions) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/210 "2006-01-11T00:33:08Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > No: the natural world is defined by the observable properties of what’s in it. If a being has an omnipresent consciousness, then our theory that nothing moves faster than light is flawed. And the new theory becomes nothing moves faster than light except this god thingie? Rather inelegant. My model of a natural law doesn’t include exceptions for one or two entities that feel like violating them, clearly yours does. In quality, these things are called outliers, and they are the kind of chips you discard in a semiconductor manufacturing process even if they don’t strictly fail any tests. My proposal is instead of defining what is good (natural) more widely when you see these, you discard them (call them supernatural). This doesn’t come from a rigorous definition, but more from intuition of what an elegant theory should look like. ---
**Author:** ![Grey\_Mauser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ac91a4/32.png) [@Grey\_Mauser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey_Mauser)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/211 "2006-01-11T00:34:26Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I really don’t think we disagree on anything except the preferred use of words. Well naturally, I prefer _mine_ > [@](#): > > I am really, really unclear on why folks keep trying to argue anythign else with me :). Slow day 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/212 "2006-01-11T00:55:04Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The telepathy particles are hiding in the same place as the sight/smell/hearing and other sensory perception particles are hiding. > > I do believe in telepathy, however I don’t think that it works by the ways people want it to work. Brains emit radiation, and other brains are capable of perceiving that radiation. However, there are compatibility issues with the way people organize their thoughts that make it more difficult for another person to decode the thoughts of another. Like all the other senses, it works in tandem with the senses, so things like cold reading, rather than being able to explain away telepathy are a part of the telepathic process. That reminds me of Doyle, who was convinced that Houdini was using psychic methods in his magic though Houdini knew exactly what he was doing. I’ve read enough descriptions of how to do cold readings to doubt any telepathy is involved. Brains, like anything electrical, do emit radiation, though I know of no mechanism (besides the eye!) for them to receive it. If you find someone who you think is telepathic, and gets repeatable results, after collecting your money from Randi you can put them in a Faraday cage to check. I believe I’ve read something about how people’s thought patterns are different enough so that transmission (or reading them through sensing the brain’s activity) would be very difficult. I would wonder why we would evolve such a capability considering that we have perfectly good mouths and ears. > [@](#): > > You are conflating metaphysical and supernatural. Metaphysical properties are properties that are not limited to a particular time or place. An idea doesn’t have physical properties, but it can affect the physical world. It can be made physical. This does not make an idea ‘supernatural’, though it is metaphysical. Moi? I assure you that I have never imagined them to be related in any way. > [@](#): > > I feel like you WANT to not believe in God, and that this clouds your judgement of the issue. There is no reason that God needs to be unnatural. If God exists then God is perfectly natural. You are just proposing a definition of God that supports atheism, because you want atheism to be correct. Nope. A natural god (by my definition, not Daniel’s) is not very interesting, and not at all like the God I grew up with. How could a god who can doing anything logically possible be natural? How can a god who created the universe be natural? How is a god bound by the laws of physics anything more than an advanced alien? My lack of belief is purely based on evidence - all my youthful relgious experiences were very pleasant. > [@](#): > > For me, we are sharing thoughts across vast distances of space using a machine to transmit memes using electrons. This is evidence enough of God’s existance. It shows me that the thought process is larger than myself and is transmitted using a corpus that involves many machines and organisms working in concert in order to understand the universe. Well, that or, as my EE prof said in 1973, the machines are for people at MIT to send “foo” to people at Stanford and them to send “bar” back. Or bad jokes. Or porn. > [@](#): > > That is all the evidence I need. The people in this thread collectively as an entity are an intelligence larger than myself. Human beings as a race have radically affected the shape of this planet that we live on, and if we leave it we will radically shape the shape of whatever organizing principle(system) that we inhabit. > > I don’t see any reason why we have labelled one little chunk of matter, the human brain as being the source of intelligence. That which is being perceived is just as much a part of the perception as that which is doing the perceiving. We are all part of a much larger organism/mechanism that perceives itself. We are right now humanity perceiving itself and other things, in an argument about the semantics of a particular word and how useful it is to describe the world around us. I think that the word is not useful because all it does is add to confusion. I have yet to see a case where the word supernatural engenders understanding. > > Erek Well, I don’t know if the larger entity perceives itself or not, but in general I agree with you that we are a part of something bigger. Forget the world, anyone working on a large design project knows that no one person knows all parts of the design. The “designer” is a collection of brains working together, like our body is a collection of cells working together. That’s why I disagree with the Chinese box refutation of AI. If the system is intelligent, the intelligence comes from the person programming the cards. It doesn’t matter that the person reading the cards does not understand them no more than the fact that our neurons are not intelligent. But there is nothing mystical going on her, or in the concept of us working together, and certainly nothing that I would call god. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/213 "2006-01-11T01:05:21Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > “Magical” means “describing an action whose intentional consequence contradicts the rules of the universe: a subcategory of nonexistent.” If something occurs, then it’s natural. Welcome to the natural baseball league, folks. Mr. Supernatural steps up to the plate. Strike ONE! Strike TWO! Strike THREE! Ball ONE Strike FOUR. Yer Out! New fan turns to spectator. “Hey how come he broke the rules.” “He can’t break the rules by definition. The rules are just different for him.” > [@](#): > > It’s useful to talk about magic precisely **because** it’s nonexistent. To the best of my knowledge, praying for a stranger’s healing is an example of magical thinking: because the intended consequence is impossible to achieve **as a result of the action** , it’s a specific sort of illogical thinking. I’d call it magical thinking because the person doing it is following some rules that he thinks will work, by a perceived set of magical rules. Sticking a pin in a voodoo doll is similar. By your definition attempting to square the circle is magical thinking. Dumb, yes, magical, no. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/214 "2006-01-11T07:45:07Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I believe I’ve read something about how people’s thought patterns are different enough so that transmission (or reading them through sensing the brain’s activity) would be very difficult. I would wonder why we would evolve such a capability considering that we have perfectly good mouths and ears. Simple ! People lie, or don’t speak at all about something. If telepathy were possible, a telepath could learn secrets, detect unspoken hostility, detect lies/see the truth; any number of useful things. As the science fiction writer Larry Niven pointed out long ago, this is actually an arguement _against_ telepathy; it’s so useful, that evolutionary pressures would cause it to be universal. If nothing else, imagine how effective a mindreading seducer would be. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/215 "2006-01-11T13:26:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > And the new theory becomes nothing moves faster than light except this god thingie? Rather inelegant. My model of a natural law doesn’t include exceptions for one or two entities that feel like violating them, clearly yours does. Okay, if you want to consider light to be supernatural, that’s your business: clearly nothing moves as fast as the speed of light except for light, right? The new theory, of course, doesn’t become “nothing moves faster than light except this god thingy.” It may become, “God thingy takes advantage of a fifth, previously-undiscovered force, under which particles affect one another simultaneously regardless of their distance; let’s study this force to discover the underlying mechanism.” > [@](#): > > In quality, these things are called outliers, and they are the kind of chips you discard in a semiconductor manufacturing process even if they don’t strictly fail any tests. My proposal is instead of defining what is good (natural) more widely when you see these, you discard them (call them supernatural). This doesn’t come from a rigorous definition, but more from intuition of what an elegant theory should look like. Right, but in science, if you discard outliers, you get fired from your institution and your name becomes mud in the scientific community. You must **account** for the outliers, explain why they occur. We’re not dealing with quality control here. We’re dealing with science, and your ideas about science are seeming progressively flawed. I’m not going to touch your baseball analogy, because it’s honestly pretty dumb. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/216 "2006-01-11T13:34:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > New fan turns to spectator. “Hey how come he broke the rules.” > > “He can’t break the rules by definition. The rules are just different for him.” What does A J Pierzynski have to do with this topic? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/217 "2006-01-12T00:15:32Z")
**GIGObuster** Your long post had almost nothing to do with what I wrote. I guess that’s the essence of miscommunication. Though, when you find these Mystic Nazis that are trying their damnedest to censor the truth, I’d love to meet them. You missed my point entirely on Global Warming. I didn’t say Global Warming doesn’t exist. I am sorry if I didn’t communicate effectively. What I did say was that there are lots of theories regarding it, many of which will turn out to be wrong. Global Warming can exist, and you can agree that it exists and be right about that, but be wrong about what causes it, how drastic it is, what the effects of it are, a whole slew of things to be wrong about, and a lot of those scientists are wrong about it, and they are making it harder to locate the ones that are right about it. My original point about mysticism and science not being in conflict still stands. Ancient Scientists were largely mystics because what we today call “science” was not yet invented. A mystic delves into the mysteries of the universe. Some are correct, some are incorrect, and some come to a conclusion that others take wildly out of context, that seem incorrect but may not be when placed in the appropriate context. Anyway, I’ve exorcized a lot of what I wanted to get down to on this subject, and I need to go do some more reading and research into it as many people such as Left Hand of Dorkness, Voyager, Citizen Bob, tomndebb and Gooftroopbag have given me some interesting stuff to ponder. Though right now my focus is more on politics and history at least for today, so I am gonna do some reading about that thanks to Maeglin and his AP Euro textbook that he lent me. 😉 Anyway, if you don’t find responses forthcoming from me further in this thread, that’s why. See you kids later. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/218 "2006-01-12T00:50:02Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Simple ! People lie, or don’t speak at all about something. If telepathy were possible, a telepath could learn secrets, detect unspoken hostility, detect lies/see the truth; any number of useful things. As the science fiction writer Larry Niven pointed out long ago, this is actually an arguement _against_ telepathy; it’s so useful, that evolutionary pressures would cause it to be universal. If nothing else, imagine how effective a mindreading seducer would be. That’s a good point. But I wonder what would happen when the ability spread to everyone. Perhaps too much knowledge wouldn’t be evolutionarily advantageous. Good idea for an sf story there… ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/219 "2006-01-12T01:06:11Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **GIGObuster** Your long post had almost nothing to do with what I wrote. I guess that’s the essence of miscommunication. > > Though, when you find these Mystic Nazis that are trying their damnedest to censor the truth, I’d love to meet them. As I see many religious people of today being the descendants of past mystics, they are everywhere pressuring government (or being the government) to censor in the name of security or to “prevent sin”. > [@mswas](#): > > You missed my point entirely on Global Warming. I didn’t say Global Warming doesn’t exist. I am sorry if I didn’t communicate effectively. What I did say was that there are lots of theories regarding it, many of which will turn out to be wrong. > **[Climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)** > > Climate change includes both human-induced global warming and its large-scale impacts on weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current changes are more rapid than any known events in Earth's history. The main cause is the emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for energy use creates most of these emissions. Agriculture, steel making, cement production, and forest loss are also significant sources. T > [@](#): > > The global warming controversy is an ongoing dispute about what effect humans have on the global climate and what policies should be followed to mitigate any current detrimental effects, and prevent future detrimental effects. Although not fully settled, the current consensus from the official scientific communities on climate change is that recent warming is largely human-caused. > > According to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is 66% to 90% certain to have been due to radiative forcing from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. > [@mswas](#): > > Global Warming can exist, and you can agree that it exists and be right about that, but be wrong about what causes it, how drastic it is, what the effects of it are, a whole slew of things to be wrong about, and a lot of those scientists are wrong about it, and they are making it harder to locate the ones that are right about it. > [@](#): > > Other theories > Various other hypotheses have been proposed, including but not limited to: > > The warming is within the range of natural variation and needs no particular explanation. > The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period — the Little Ice Age — and needs no other explanation. Supporters of this theory contend that accurate records of temperature were not collected until the end of the Little Ice Age (i.e., mid to late 1800s), and hence, natural warming would be an inevitable result over the subsequent decades. > The warming trend itself has not been clearly established, and therefore does not need any explanation. > **At present, none of these has more than a small number of supporters within the climate science community**. I still think my point stands: you don’t have any good examples to support your ideas. > [@mswas](#): > > My original point about mysticism and science not being in conflict still stands. Ancient Scientists were largely mystics because what we today call “science” was not yet invented. A mystic delves into the mysteries of the universe. Some are correct, some are incorrect, and some come to a conclusion that others take wildly out of context, that seem incorrect but may not be when placed in the appropriate context. Your context here is the old “heads I win, tails you lose”. You are avoiding the fact that those Ancient Mystic Scientists did contradict each other and only when science came along the fog of ignorance was lifted. Being correct after science appeared was then a little bit better than luck, but like Galileo did when he dropped the weights to see if Aristotle was right, you have to _run rough shot_ 🙂 over the mystics to get to the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103/220 "2006-01-12T01:11:06Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Okay, if you want to consider light to be supernatural, that’s your business: clearly nothing moves as fast as the speed of light except for light, right? _sigh_ That’s why I said faster than light, not as fast as light. Any massless particle can move as fast as light, and it is any electromagnetic radiation, not just the special case of light. Nitpicky enough? > [@](#): > > The new theory, of course, doesn’t become “nothing moves faster than light except this god thingy.” It may become, “God thingy takes advantage of a fifth, previously-undiscovered force, under which particles affect one another simultaneously regardless of their distance; let’s study this force to discover the underlying mechanism.” That would indeed be a competing hypothesis. It wouldn’t graduate to a theory until you found out something about this mysterious force. If you did, then you would indeed have shown that everything is natural. I’m not denying that is a possibility. But what if this effort were a failure? > [@](#): > > Right, but in science, if you discard outliers, you get fired from your institution and your name becomes mud in the scientific community. You must **account** for the outliers, explain why they occur. > > Daniel You never heard of experimental error? 🙂 A basic principle is universality and consistency, not to mention elegance. Natural laws don’t work one place and not another, and they don’t work for me and not for you. If we were driven, by the unlikely event of observing events not explicible by current science, and were unsuccessful in coming up with natural explanations for these events, is it better to throw out these very basic principles or isolate the events by calling them supernatural (tentatively.)? One reason we reject the inclusion of God in theories and laws is that they become intractable if it is F = ma, unless God throws in a fudge factor. We have to treat the supernatural as not affecting our laws. That’s exactly what believers who do science do, right? Though they believe a god exists who can violate laws, they wall him off into the realm of the supernatural, and don’t consider him to impact science. They don’t waste their time finding natural explanations for God’s actions. One group of believers do this - the “scientific” creationists. And you know as well as I what a muddle they make of both science and religion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-say-about-the-supernatural/338103.md?page=12)