If a hard core atheist is presented with proof that there are forces in the world that cannot be explained naturally, the atheist will still adhere to his own beliefs that even if now we can’t explain them, someday with the adequate tools and after further studies, we will. The explanation that there are forces that do not obey the natural laws, will not be accepted… even in the face of factual evidence.
This tells me everything biols down to choice. Belief is not just a matter of showing someone the evidence of something, but it is a matter of choice. I can show the atheist a person levitating and he will still deny that the levitation occurred beause of the power of the mind (for example), or he will doubt his own sanity if he does see a person floating in meditation. The atheist chooses to believe that if he is witnessing an event that appears to fall outside of natural explanations, it is either because he has gone mad, or because the explanation is not there *yet*.
Religious people likewise, even when presented with evidence about the causes of things, also choose to continue believing in supernatural causes. Tsunamis and earthquakes are not seen just as natural events with explainable causes, but as the hand of god trying to accomplish a purpose.
Both the faith infused, and the atheist argue that they want “evidence” . The religious often accuse the atheists of saying that “something came out of nothing” , asking the atheist to present evidence for the forces behind the big bang or of life itself. The religous seem to want evidence and yet they reject it when scientific evidence is presented.
The atheist likewise seeks evidence for events, but in the case of witnessing an event that has no natural explanation, he will always argue that there has to be one, that there is no possibility for something outside of nature.
Although there is no problem to leave each one to make his choice regarding what kind of evidence they will accept and how they will judge it as long as we can all tolerate that each choice is subjective: the problem does arise when we talk about how research is done and guided. Research into different topics is guided by our subjective desires and questions. As a collective for example, in the social sciences, right now there is interest in research on democracy with a lot of optimism. Research done on the positive aspects of communism for example, is often dismissed in light of the vast amount of evidence that says communism is bad. We don’t have to make evaluative judgements about the systems, but we must take into account all sorts of contending evidence. Likewise I feel that in our scientific age, someone who says they will do research that proves that that a miracle did not have natural explanations will be dismissed easily, as that miracle might represent a .000000000000001% of the cases where natural causes proved inadequate. But it doesn’t mean we should automatically dismiss it as irrelevant, does it? Sometimes in those very rare exceptions we can find very interesting answers.
Personally I think that there are very few, if at all any, events that can be attributed as being outside of nature’s commands. However there are still questions about consciousness, such as the existence of a soul, the power of thoughts, etc; that have not been answered and that at one moment or another if we do witness their effects, we should consider that maybe the reasons we can’t explain them are because they are outside the realm of natural causes. I advocate for scientific research and an open mind not to reject the assumption that the super natural might exist. The atheist assumption otherwise, is already that it does not exist therefore all answers will point towards natural causes. Assuming that *there is* something else , allows us to direct research towards causes that have been dismissed by many. Can we find the soul? First we have to assume that it is there. As long as we can do that, we can try to *find* it.
A group of Princeton Scientists for example have taken it upon them to research these questions and have made experiments and test hypothesis regarding the existence of a “global consciousness” and the interactions between mind and matter. In the early 1900′s some guy called Douglas MacDougall did some research to try to find the human soul. He recorded a loss of weight of dying patients before and seconds after their death, finding that there was a very distinct loss of exactly 21 grams. A series of causes were dismissed (such as air escaping from the lungs) by running different tests. Apparently the phenomena of such loss was only evident in humans, as animals did not lose any weight after their death. However to this day no one else has take up his findings of continued his research and his research was found as not having an impact. Why isn’t anyone researching this?
I don’t say we should easily ascribe supernatural causes to things we dont know. We should definetly keep looking. But we should look with the right attitude. Right now there is a man in India, a “spiritual” man, a yogi, who has been fasting for what he claims are years. Doctors decided to put him unders study, check his vital signs, etc. Now, this man I say is an exception to the rule and probably less than 0.0000000000001% of the cases! I think it is great that doctors are taking the time to check and study him and not just say he is a lier or say “well we know it cant happen, there must be something easily explainable going on anyway, so why bother with this”. Instead their belief that someting ELSE might be going on, drives their desire to learn from it. If we all know that it is impossible to go without food for years, why bother with someone who claims the contrary? Unless we assume that something *super natural* is possible we wont be able to find it. Like those doctors, we must first have to make the choice to believe that there might be an alternate explanation, a force outside of natural law. Unless we make this choice, even if the evidence is placed in front of us, we wont believe.
Here is one of the many videos documenting what some doctors think of the holy indian man who claims does not need water or food to survive. Supernatural? It is your choice to decide.
Filed under: Perception, religion Tagged: | 21 grams soul, atheism, atheist research, douglas mcdougall, faith, global consciousness, mind and matter, religion, soul, soul weight, spirit, spiritual man fasting
How can you affirm that something is supernatural?
When faced with a phenomenon never seen before, there are many positions a person can take, ranging from mystical extremist to atheism extremist.
Let’s take your photosynthetic Indian man as an example. The mystical person might have the impulse of declaring it supernatural: no one has an explanation for it and no one will ever have, for it is out of our grasp by definition. Now, how can anyone ever affirm something like that? Can we ever know if something will never be explained by scientific means? How can we tell the supernatural apart from the not-yet explained by science? What would be, as you proposed, an evidence for supernaturalness?
The atheism extremist is another extreme of the spectrum. For him, there will be an explanation someday, that’s the only option. He firmly believes science will eventually explain everything. But that’s something no one can affirm for sure until it is in fact explained, so he might as well be wrong.
The mystical who affirms this is a supernatural phenomenon might be proven wrong someday when an explanation comes up. The atheism extremist who affirms this will have an explanation someday can never be proven wrong, but he can waste the rest of his life in a useless search.
Where do I find myself in the spectrum? Definitely far from the mystical. As I see it, concluding that there’s no conclusion is just dumb. But I wouldn’t go as far as the other end. I’d just admit I don’t understand what just happened and spend a while wondering about the possible natural causes.
And I’d keep myself open to any new evidence which might come up. Can people levitate with the power of their minds? Cool, let’s try to find out more about it. How far can they go, what are they thinking at the moment, can they carry heavy objects, does gravity disappear around them, does it only work far away from other people… These are questions with clear answers. It would be so interesting to find this person and try to answer all these questions!
This is my position. I won’t believe anything which hasn’t been proven.
So tell me myatama, how can someone “do research that proves that that a miracle did not have natural explanations”? Can “supernatural” ever be an irrefutable answer?
thanks for the comment!
Definetly i think if someone comes and says, about a levitating man, “he defied gravity it is a fact!” I think that already classifies as being against the laws of nature, don’t you? We can find out more ABOUT it but already with the knowledge that it is a phenomena that is going outside the laws of nature. Does that make sense?
The question of WHY does that happen? well that is one question that neither the naturalist or the mystic might be able to answer soon. Finding out “how” something happens is different than “why” something happens. Especially if the issue is defying the laws of nature.
The photosynthetic man. They are finding out “how” it is possible he doesnt eat and feels fine. The theory says “photosynthesis” . That is a great “how”. We can understand it. But WHY is he photosynthetic? do we dismiss these things as freaks of nature? just as that? or do we dig deeper and perhaps learn more about the nature of the little man — what is his philosophy? what are his thoughts? does he pray or not?
I think all these things are valid questions.
So what do you mean by “proven”? If we take the hypothetical example of the levitating man… or the photosynthetic indian. We might get proof that those things ARE ocurring. So what other proof do you say? The proof that tells you it is something perfectly natural? or the proof that IT exists and it happened?
Can natural proof be irrefutable? it seems quite convenient to say “ah but science will explain it fully one day..”
If research were made on levitating men, Im really curious as to what would be found. I think all the questions you asked were very valid. Maybe it is not that gravity dissappears but tha it is defyied by another force, so what is that force, where does it come from? etc… Through research we could find out what it is… maybe thoughts DO have power and ability to influence reality. You know? the power to defy the “laws of nature”. that is how research would prove something “super natural”.
“A plane defied gravity, that’s a fact!”
Science does not claim to have immutable answers. Science is constantly improving. For example, one day we got to a point where bodies’ movements seemed to defy Newton’s laws, which were as far as natural laws went at the time. Then Einstein came with relativity and complemented that old knowledge in order to account for other kinds of phenomena. If evidence comes up that something doesn’t work according to the most advanced “natural laws” of the time, scientists don’t just ignore it, they try to make the laws broader in order to account for it.
Myatama, “digging deeper and perhaps learning more about the nature of the little man” is to do science. And if we find out “how and why” he does that, we will be finding out one more way nature might work – taking it away from the supernatural realm. No?
You say you are considering the supernatural to be true but you are trying to bring it to the natural sphere, which changes everything, think about it. Or maybe we don’t mean the same by supernatural.
I don’t get what you are saying. Are you saying scientists deny the fact that these people might be levitating? Because I don’t think no serious scientist would ignore evidence like that. Or are you saying that when they see it they will try to explain it? Because in this case, you are doing exactly the same! Trying to consider the influence of prayer and all…
You know, it seems to me that you are trying to say scientists should investigate more seriously certain phenomena which most people usually dismiss as impossible. And I agree with you there, we should examine everything and take nothing for granted! But the way you are phrasing it saying that the supernatural should be proved just seems wrong to me, because the supernatural is unprovable by definition, in my opinion at least.
Thanks for the comment again.
I think we agree on more research in certain topics that are usually dismissed as impossible.
What I’m saying is about things that defy the natural laws (and I do not mean man made things! I’m sorry if you thought this …). I think science has advanced enough to the point of asserting that there ARE some natural, almost irrefutable laws that govern the natural world. Such as gravity. Current scientific advancements are built upon the knowledge of these laws.
Now, I don’t know enough but… are these “laws” constantly redefined? Why are they called “laws” then? If they were constantly redefined as you say, then scientific claims would not be trustworthy. There is a difference between laws and theories. To say “human’s need food to survive” is not just a theory that someone else will come to disprove. Usually the disproving of things happens in areas which are still contested or uncertain. Like quantum physics right now there are a lot of theories out there, some more accurate than others and yet we cannot say we have “laws” because some scientists work under the assumptions of string theories, some have already dismissed it and work using mathematical models based on something else. I am not talking about these sort of theories.
I think any serious scientist should not dismiss things that defy “natural laws” and immediately say that natural laws govern it. If a man levitates, well i think this is a clear defiance of natural laws and that his levitation will not cause all scientists to dismiss the discoveries of newton or einstein regarding gravity and then dismiss gravity completely. Maybe what it would do is make them consider the effect of immaterial forces in the material world, like thoughts.
What I mean about supernatural is of something that is not bound by natural/physical laws. If a man levitates 10 centimeters, to me this defies natural law. If a man walks on fire and doesn’t get burnt. This defies the properties of fire and skin, no? Are we going to build another law with other properties of fire that says it doesn’t burn? the answers we get, this is where I say we have to make a distinction between “how” and “why”. you are right, we might be able to answer “how” it is that the man does not burn his feet… or how the man survives without food – photosynthesis. But not …. why it is that he can do it while no one else can. why is he photosynthetic?
so to me , this is where choice comes in. the naturalist will continue to search in hopes of something else, in hopes for a rational explanation. The mystic will also continue to search but will more readily accept the possibility of the existence of a super-natural world which we can come in contact with through prayer or meditation.
I think finding out how things work does not take them from the super-natural. not if they continue to “defy” the natural laws anyway. i repeat again, super-natural by my definition is just something that defies natural laws. if i see a man walking on water (not running, actually now there is a sport of people trying to run very fast on water), i will consider it as super-natural. we might find out that molecules stick to his feet and do this and that…. but… we can still say that he is defying gravity and properties in nature. can’t we?
On another note.. it is interesting how paradigms change and how the things we take for granted in our current world view, might not be accurate at all.
What if science did find out that thoughs have *power*. That prayer does have power, that meditation does have power…
What would this do to our view of religion and the world as it is?
therefore Im saying these are the things that need more research and we should be ready to accept whatever comes, the possibility that some things *could* defy the laws of nature.
I do think though, that these things are quite rare… exceptions…. and this is why they would not require the scientific community to rethink the entire conception of how nature works and the forces that govern it. fire still burns, we still need food to survive, and we wont float out into the atmosphere because gravity ceased to work.