evidence for the supernatural

[mererdog]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/explaining_science_won_t_fix_information_illiteracy.html

Edited April 20, 2017 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 4/20/2017 at 0:41 PM, mererdog said:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/explaining_science_won_t_fix_information_illiteracy.html

I followed your link.  It's disturbing.  Apparently having scientists explain how science works -- is as useless as Fundamentalists quoting Scripture.  That is not what I was expecting.  

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 Apparently having scientists explain how science works -- is as useless as Fundamentalists quoting Scripture.  

Its the same basic psychology at work. If your audience is not receptive to what you are teaching, you are basically wasting your breath. Even worse, you are kind of innoculating them against your position. And that also means that every time we conclude that something is nonsense, we could be falling prey to the same thing. Because the really nasty part is that we are usually blind to the fact that we are wearing blinders."Disturbing" barely covers it.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

Its the same basic psychology at work. If your audience is not receptive to what you are teaching, you are basically wasting your breath. Even worse, you are kind of innoculating them against your position. And that also means that every time we conclude that something is nonsense, we could be falling prey to the same thing. Because the really nasty part is that we are usually blind to the fact that we are wearing blinders."Disturbing" barely covers it.

On one level I get it.  At the same time, it's so counter intuitive, it hurts.  

[mererdog]

19 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Very effective summary. I concur.

[Cornelius]

Unfortunately these things rely on experiential knowledge and cannot be reproduced in a lab. So by scientific standards that can never really be "proven" unless a new technology occurs that allows us to catalogue and observe them in repeatable instances. Therefore it is a matter of belief and if you don't believe you most likely won't and if you do then you most likely can't see how others do not. We see in the world that which we desire to see.

[mererdog]

12 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

Therefore it is a matter of belief and if you don't believe you most likely won't and if you do then you most likely can't see how others do not. We see in the world that which we desire to see.

That makes sense until you notice how often people's beliefs shift over time. It is not really rare for people who don't believe to come to believe, nor for people who believe to stop believing. Both of these kinds of events often happen after a deep personal tragedy fundamentally changes how the person is able to see things.

[Cornelius]

18 hours ago, mererdog said:

That makes sense until you notice how often people's beliefs shift over time. It is not really rare for people who don't believe to come to believe, nor for people who believe to stop believing. Both of these kinds of events often happen after a deep personal tragedy fundamentally changes how the person is able to see things.

Very true. For clarification I wasn't stating people are incapable of going from non- belief to belief and vice versa or that it is rare. For the context of that statement reference my earlier sentences in which I said "Unfortunately these things rely on experiential knowledge and cannot be reproduced in a lab. So by scientific standards that can never really be "proven" unless a new technology occurs that allows us to catalogue and observe them in repeatable instances.."

 

Quote

Both of these kinds of events often happen after a deep personal tragedy fundamentally changes how the person is able to see things.

Sounds experiential.

A worldview shift is unlikely to occur with a conversation. It can happen but that conversation will most likely have surrounding experiences that make the person receptive to that conversation.

 

[mererdog]

3 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

Sounds eexperiential

As is a conversation. 

We usually do not know why we believe what we believe, and when our beliefs shift we often can't pin down a specific cause. I assume this is because any significant shift in belief has a myriad causes. While a single conversation seems unlikely to have a profound effect, in and of itself, it can be a necessary last straw without which there is no broken back. There are also phenomenon like role-modeling, wherein repeated exposure through conversation can allow a person to have a profound impact on another, though not at all necessarily in ways intended...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

As is a conversation. 

We usually do not know why we believe what we believe, and when our beliefs shift we often can't pin down a specific cause. I assume this is because any significant shift in belief has a myriad causes. While a single conversation seems unlikely to have a profound effect, in and of itself, it can be a necessary last straw without which there is no broken back. There are also phenomenon like role-modeling, wherein repeated exposure through conversation can allow a person to have a profound impact on another, though not at all necessarily in ways intended...

In my own case, the shifts tend to be gradual.  One day I look up and discover that my beliefs no longer fit my resume.  

[Cornelius]

12 hours ago, mererdog said:

As is a conversation. 

We usually do not know why we believe what we believe, and when our beliefs shift we often can't pin down a specific cause. I assume this is because any significant shift in belief has a myriad causes. While a single conversation seems unlikely to have a profound effect, in and of itself, it can be a necessary last straw without which there is no broken back. There are also phenomenon like role-modeling, wherein repeated exposure through conversation can allow a person to have a profound impact on another, though not at all necessarily in ways intended...

It seems like we are agreeing yet debating at the same time... Am I not being clear enough?

[mererdog]

10 hours ago, Stormbringer said:

It seems like we are agreeing yet debating at the same time... 

I rarely either agree with someone completely or disagree with someone completely. You?

[Cornelius]

17 minutes ago, mererdog said:

I rarely either agree with someone completely or disagree with someone completely. You?

Safe to be said.

[the Hearthwitch]

On 1/14/2016 at 9:08 AM, cuchulain said:

In reexamining my beliefs, I realize that this is ultimately what it boils down to.  Is there any reasonable evidence for supernatural events happening?  If there is no evidence for the supernatural, then clearly there is no evidence for any sort of deity.  Supernatural is defined as some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.  Deity is defined as a god or goddess, divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme being.  Reasonable is defined as having sound judgement, fair and sensible, capable of reasoning, rational.

So, I pose the question:  Does anyone here have any reasonable evidence for supernatural happenings?  I would consider a preponderance of anecdotal stories from reliable sources as evidence, meaning stories from people who haven't been diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder, or who don't clearly promote a specific agenda, and in numerous amounts.  I personally have that "one" story from my own experience, and having had three friends with me as witnesses that it actually occurred, but whether or not the event was supernatural is undetermined by those of us with a sound mental background.  The other person who was convinced it was supernatural later ended up in an institution, with the firm belief he was a werewolf, so for obvious reasons I disbelieve his accounting.

I'm going to play that ball where it lays, so to speak- no quibbling about terminology. 

 

Evidence, as in empirical? Nope. I can't prove it. But I Know it. I See it, Hear it, and Feel it, more often than some people brush their teeth. (I am using the capitalizations somewhat facetiously- not wanting to be dramatic, but I have no other way to express the ways that I sometimes perceive things that other people apparently don't.) Some of my experiences have been witnessed by others; a lot of 'em weren't. Knowing is good enough for me.

 

I think some of this has to do with deities, including one whose messenger is still knocking stuff over at my house, apparently to irritate the dog and cats. And my husband. (And I'm STILL puzzled as to why S/He sent that One to us! LOL) I don't have a lot of contact with Beings that present as Gods or Goddesses, but the times that they have, I've found to be pretty convincing. I've also dealt with some really, really (for the lack of a better term) EVIL ones- the best I can do is to say that they presented as something demon-like. Mostly, though, I just get the ones I call the Visitors- whether they're ghosts, wights, whatever you want to call them- they're a little different, and mostly harmless. I don't always find out why they came to visit, either, although sometimes I get lucky.

 

There are a ton of other folks who are experiencing this, too- check out Patheos Pagan sometime- there are LOTS of anecdotes there, of experiences with both deities, and other Beings. Also, my family all have experience with this...my youngest son just came into his Sight last year, and it was a doozy of an experience!  I think this is more normal to some folks than others. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 1/15/2016 at 10:58 AM, Gruffydd y Dryw said:

Hi Cuchulain,

No criticism was intended towards you on my part. Its just the nature of language. Words sometimes convey meanings that may not match their original intended use. Look up an older definition of the word "gay" versus what it has come to mean today I understood how you meant the word. It is the word itself that I find problematic, not your use of it

 

There are other words.  Robin Hood had a band of "merry men".  I don't know.  Maybe.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 minutes ago, the Hearthwitch said:

I'm going to play that ball where it lays, so to speak- no quibbling about terminology. 

 

Evidence, as in empirical? Nope. I can't prove it. But I Know it. I See it, Hear it, and Feel it, more often than some people brush their teeth. (I am using the capitalizations somewhat facetiously- not wanting to be dramatic, but I have no other way to express the ways that I sometimes perceive things that other people apparently don't.) Some of my experiences have been witnessed by others; a lot of 'em weren't. Knowing is good enough for me.

 

I think some of this has to do with deities, including one whose messenger is still knocking stuff over at my house, apparently to irritate the dog and cats. And my husband. (And I'm STILL puzzled as to why S/He sent that One to us! LOL) I don't have a lot of contact with Beings that present as Gods or Goddesses, but the times that they have, I've found to be pretty convincing. I've also dealt with some really, really (for the lack of a better term) EVIL ones- the best I can do is to say that they presented as something demon-like. Mostly, though, I just get the ones I call the Visitors- whether they're ghosts, wights, whatever you want to call them- they're a little different, and mostly harmless. I don't always find out why they came to visit, either, although sometimes I get lucky.

 

There are a ton of other folks who are experiencing this, too- check out Patheos Pagan sometime- there are LOTS of anecdotes there, of experiences with both deities, and other Beings. Also, my family all have experience with this...my youngest son just came into his Sight last year, and it was a doozy of an experience!  I think this is more normal to some folks than others. 

 

"Some things need to be believed to be seen."  Yes?  

 

[the Hearthwitch]

15 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

"Some things need to be believed to be seen."  Yes?  

 

Not necessarily. I do hope that you're not being snarky- a question was asked, and I answered it truthfully. I think some folks are dealing with their deities and Others directly, and some aren't. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other, either. It's just a thing that IS.

I was not raised by people who wanted anything to do with this, although I found out, near her death, that my mother had been dealing with it for her entire life, but tried to deny it. That was pretty sobering.

I have had to make my journey on my own. So have a lot of other people. It wasn't a matter of having the belief ahead of time, for a lot of us. Weird stuff happens, whether you're looking for it, or not. 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 minutes ago, the Hearthwitch said:

Not necessarily. I do hope that you're not being snarky- a question was asked, and I answered it truthfully. I think some folks are dealing with their deities and Others directly, and some aren't. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other, either. It's just a thing that IS.

I was not raised by people who wanted anything to do with this, although I found out, near her death, that my mother had been dealing with it for her entire life, but tried to deny it. That was pretty sobering.

I have had to make my journey on my own. So have a lot of other people. It wasn't a matter of having the belief ahead of time, for a lot of us. Weird stuff happens, whether you're looking for it, or not. 

 

 

No snark intended.  I have come to accept that our beliefs open us up to different experiences.  The experiences in turn shape our beliefs.

 

I don't want to sidetrack the conversation.  For now, let us say that I've had my own experiences.  

 

 

[the Hearthwitch]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

No snark intended.  I have come to accept that our beliefs open us up to different experiences.  The experiences in turn shape our beliefs.

 

I don't want to sidetrack the conversation.  For now, let us say that I've had my own experiences.  

 

 

Thank you- I appreciate you having clarified that. It's so hard to tell on forums- the cues aren't as clear.  And I'll admit, my skin is probably thinner than it should be. This is why I usually avoid forums, but I'm trying, here. (And hoping not to get cut too badly! LOL)

It would be so much easier, if we could just...prove things. Experiential stuff just doesn't wash, for the empirical crowd, usually. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, the Hearthwitch said:

Thank you- I appreciate you having clarified that. It's so hard to tell on forums- the cues aren't as clear.  And I'll admit, my skin is probably thinner than it should be. This is why I usually avoid forums, but I'm trying, here. (And hoping not to get cut too badly! LOL)

It would be so much easier, if we could just...prove things. Experiential stuff just doesn't wash, for the empirical crowd, usually. 

 

This I understand.  I have a background in Reiki and Therapeutic Touch.  I know about demands for empirical data.