The Supernatural and Superstition

[Moontanman]

Tar;

 

Two things in separate containers can not magically connect. This is reality. But one of the few "connections" that science, psychology, has studied and accepts is bonds between people. Bonds are a mental and/or emotional connection between people's minds. So if the "connections" are subjective, that would mean that the subjective extends beyond the body. If this is so, then the solipsists and/or Plato's dream reality may be correct.

 

I don't accept that the subjective is hidden within the body and is unknowable, nor do I accept the dream reality, as I suspect that there is a middle ground. The subjective is anchored to the body, but can extend beyond the body. This is the only thing that makes any sense at all.

 

 

Every person that I have talked to, who denies the paranormal, makes this same argument. You all state that you imagine that I imagine something and don't understand that it is my imagination. I have never had a real problem determining the difference between what I imagine, what I think, what I believe, and what I feel. If there is a problem with imagination, I suspect that it belongs to the people who imagine that they know what other people imagine. Most of what I imagine is not true, because I imagined it, but most of what I think and feel is true.

 

I can give you a good example of a mistake regarding the paranormal. About 14 years ago, I was convinced that I had cancer. I could almost see this mass that was in my belly. It was just below my stomach and at the back by my spine, and the idea nagged at me for about two years. I found myself pushing my belly out because I did not want this thing to touch any of my other organs, and would often find myself mentally coating it with a substance that looked like thin Elmer's glue, but was slimy instead of sticky. All through my days and even when waking from sleep, I would find myself coating this thing, over and over, trying to prevent it from touching any part of my insides. Sometimes it would seem like a strand would escape this thing and it would seek out my organs, so I would get this slimy stuff and cudgel it back into the mass. I know that this does not make sense, but it was something that I felt and could not stop feeling.

 

I discussed it with my Mother, who is a Registered Nurse, and she did not believe me, but advised me to seek out a doctor. We both knew my health was bad, but did not know why. I went from doctor to doctor with no results. Then I forgot about it.

 

Two years after I had forgotten it, I was sitting in a small office with my Mother and a surgeon. This surgeon was explaining why he could not take out all of the massive tumor, as it was entangled in the small intestines and actually grew out of the artery that was just inside the spine. Although it was a slow growing cancer, the tumor was massive, the size of a grapefruit, and could not be treated with any hope for a cure. As we listened to him, my Mother and I both realized that he was describing the tumor that I had been so concerned about, but it was not in me, it was in my husband.

 

Six months later I lost my husband. Six months after that I was finally diagnosed with MS (Multiple Sclerosis). Looking back, it is easy to see that the pain, that he thought was from a bad back, was actually due to the cancer, but none of the doctors found it in time. I had not yet really studied ESP in a logical way or used any methodology. If I had, I may have been able to see that it was within him, not me, because the paranormal does not work internally. But I did not know that. The paranormal is an external communication. It has limits. It has boundaries. It is real.

 

This, I suspect, is the biggest problem--people think that I am talking about a power. I am not. I know that religions mystify and glorify the paranormal, but it is not a power. It is simply an awareness that most people have and some people have to a greater or lesser degree just like every other human attribute. Some people have very good hunches, others do not; some people have good instincts, or intuition, others do not; some people should follow their gut feelings, others should ignore them. Often we will find that we should accept these feelings in relation to a specific person or a type of event. When this happens, we are beginning to know ourselves and can use the information gained and learn to exercise this awareness.

 

When studies try to test ESP, they are forever trying to prove that thought, or ideas, move from one mind to another, but this is foolish. Thought is internal; it is private and does not transfer well, if at all. After listening to all of the complaints here, apparently I have a fair ability with regard to ESP, but I do not get thoughts. Never. What I get are feelings that nag at me, and sometimes I get pictures, which feel like a memory, but there can be no memory of that event.

 

As with my step-mother, I would sometimes find that she floated through my mind five or six times in one day, so I would wait for 11:00 p.m. to call her when the rates went down. It would be 8:00 p.m. her time, and she would be waiting for my call. The last time, as I reached for the phone at 11:00, I got an image in my mind of her on the floor, and I knew that she could not reach the phone. I did not know where on the floor she was, but assumed that she was at home and alone. I have never seen my step-mother laying on the floor.

 

 

I agree that this is probably the correct explanation for this event.

 

Well, I'm glad you have some bones to pick with me. I was beginning to think that everyone agreed with me. (chuckle) How long ago was the Psychology class? Things have changed. About two years ago, I started a thread in another science forum and worked with an Animal Behaviorist, a Neurologist, and some other intelligent scientists. I wanted to work out this little problem of instincts. What a joke! What I learned is that instincts are not understood and the whole idea of instincts needs to be revamped by an "Einstein" type of mind that has studied Biology, Psychology, and Animal Behavior.

 

I did learn a great deal, but pinned down little information. First I learned that instincts are a "behavior". Then I learned that, according to the Animal Behaviorist, there is a "frightful" number of instincts in species, so it can not be tracked. According to the Neurologist there is something called "learned intincts". According to Wiki someone mapped out 4,000 instincts in humans. My thoughts on this is that there are a "frightful" number of stars, but we try to map them; the term "learned instincts" is an oxymoron as the term "instincts" means innate; and I doubt that humans have that many instincts.

 

What I think is that this problem originated with religion. Humans, made in God's image, had souls, minds, and thoughts. Lower animals did not, so they had behaviors called instincts. Simple.

 

After reviewing animal behaviors, someone noted that humans have similar behaviors and started to count them, hence the large number of instinctive behavior in humans.

 

Science started to really study animal behavior, document all of these "instincts" then learned through MRI and other technology that some animals actually have thoughts. But no one to date, that I know of, has been able to clearly define what behavior is caused by thought and what behavior is instinctive in all species.

 

I found the Mirror Test interesting. If anyone is not aware of this test, what scientists do is put a splotch of color on the animal, then show the animal a mirror. If the animal tries to remove the splotch from him/her self, rather than removing it from the mirror, the animal passes the test. A lot of species have been able to pass this test. My thought on this is that in order for the animal to pass, it must be able to hold an image of itself in it's mind, and compare that image to the one in the mirror, and this image is from a third-person perspective. This is abstract thought. Interesting.

 

So, until someone brilliant tackles this mess, I will regard instincts as whatever can be connected to hormones or pheromones or basic life. Instincts may be a behavior, but they are motivated by knowledge and feeling or emotion, so instincts are part of consciousness. Every species has instincts, if only the instinct to survive.

 

This looks right to me, but if you go below the surface, there is more. One of the problems that Freud had when he first proposed his ideas was that they did not transfer well to other cultures. These were things that specifically related to sexual functions and societal morals. The SuperEgo became more refined to correct this problem and to include different morals of different societies in it's parameters and understanding. Morals are a product of emotion, religions are a product of emotion, family ties are a product of emotion, and societies are an emotional "connection". So when you track things to the source, the SuperEgo is ruled by emotion.

 

I don't believe that anyone doubts that the Id is about instincts and hormones--drives.

 

The Ego is the arbiture, and it is the rational mind. The rational mind does not only deal with the other parts of mind, it also deals with the input from our five senses, and deals well with the physical real world.

 

 

I heard about this show, but don't plan to watch it. I am not surprised that your wife and daughter enjoy it, as women seem to be more accepting of and drawn to the paranormal, and I think this is for two reasons. First, women generally have an internal perspective, men divide up the world into parcels and women examine the parcels. A woman's perspective is internal or introspective. The second reason is that women go through such fluxuations of hormones, and I am pretty sure that consciousness outside of the body is linked to chemicals and specifically to hormones. This is why through history, most of the seers, psychics, and witches seem to be women.

 

And there is no basis in science, yet.

 

 

Nice assertion. Can you prove it?

 

G

Gees, how about answering the question I posed in post #48 of this thread Gees, this is the fourth

time I've asked Gees...

Edited July 4, 2013 by Moontanman

[Gees]

Gees, this is the third time I've asked for some support for these assertions, you made the claim now you need to back it up. Simply stating something to be true is not enough, either show the specific scripture or withdraw the assertion...

Please show some support for these assertions I have underlined.

 

Moontanman;

 

Well, I am not sure what to tell you. I will admit that I have not given your request much attention, but that is mostly because I do not believe you are interested in learning about this. I am all about learning.

 

The idea that good hygiene is a part of the Laws in the OT is not new, as a lot of people have realized that some specific laws seem to support a protection against germs. It was clear to me when I read it, but I have since learned that it is clear to a lot of people. If you really have such an aversion to studying the Books of Law, you could use Wiki and look up "clean and unclean", the Jewish religion, the Torah, ritual cleansing, or maybe even find an introduction to the book, "Gifts of the Jews", or maybe it is, "Gifts from the Jews". This is a fairly common idea.

 

But I suspect that this is not what you want to know. Since there is no place in the OT that mentions germs, specifically, I suspect that you would like me to spend hours looking up each and every indication of this idea, each and every law, then share this information with you so that you can challenge me.

 

Since my assertion was in fact ancillary to the point of that paragraph, which was about a spiritual God concerned with physical things; and since my eyes are not very good, I do not feel the need to work hard to give you amunition to shoot at me. So I'll tell you what. I made the whole thing up. It is all nonsense, and anyone who states otherwise is wrong. I take it back. Happy now?

 

G

[Moontanman]

Moontanman;

 

Well, I am not sure what to tell you. I will admit that I have not given your request much attention, but that is mostly because I do not believe you are interested in learning about this. I am all about learning.

No, learning is about facts and reality, not making things up out of whole cloth to support your world view...

 

The idea that good hygiene is a part of the Laws in the OT is not new, as a lot of people have realized that some specific laws seem to support a protection against germs. It was clear to me when I read it, but I have since learned that it is clear to a lot of people. If you really have such an aversion to studying the Books of Law, you could use Wiki and look up "clean and unclean", the Jewish religion, the Torah, ritual cleansing, or maybe even find an introduction to the book, "Gifts of the Jews", or maybe it is, "Gifts from the Jews". This is a fairly common idea.

It's a fairly common assumption in religious circles but it is nonetheless not true. Appeals to authority and "what everyone knows" is horse feathers and spreading such nonsense as facts is wrong..

 

But I suspect that this is not what you want to know. Since there is no place in the OT that mentions germs, specifically, I suspect that you would like me to spend hours looking up each and every indication of this idea, each and every law, then share this information with you so that you can challenge me.

I'd like for you to back up your assertions with something besides your claims..

 

Since my assertion was in fact ancillary to the point of that paragraph, which was about a spiritual God concerned with physical things; and since my eyes are not very good, I do not feel the need to work hard to give you amunition to shoot at me. So I'll tell you what. I made the whole thing up. It is all nonsense, and anyone who states otherwise is wrong. I take it back. Happy now?

 

G

 

Gees, you underestimate me, I know what you asserted is simply not true, I knew it the first time you asserted it, that in of itself casts doubt on the veracity of all your anecdotal claims as well, anecdotal evidence is about as good as "everyone knows it's true" anyway anything that can be claimed with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence...

 

As far as wanting you to look it up... that would be my suggestion to you next time you claim things that everyone knows is true..

[Gees]

Gees, you underestimate me, I know what you asserted is simply not true, I knew it the first time you asserted it,

 

Moontanman;

 

I am curious. How did you know? I did not take you for a person who studies the Old Testament.

 

G

[iNow]

Moontanman;

 

I am curious. How did you know? I did not take you for a person who studies the Old Testament.

 

That was a mistake, obviously. Just because someone disagrees with you or thinks you are misguided/mistaken doesn't mean they fail to adequately understand your position or the information underlying it.

Edited July 5, 2013 by iNow

[Moontanman]

Moontanman;

 

I am curious. How did you know? I did not take you for a person who studies the Old Testament.

 

G

So you think because i don't believe the bible I never read it/

[arc]

So you think because i don't believe the bible I never read it/

 

What? That's not Rev Bullwinkle with his bible at the pulpit?

[Gees]

 

That was a mistake, obviously. Just because someone disagrees with you or thinks you are misguided/mistaken doesn't mean they fail to adequately understand your position or the information underlying it.

 

iNow;

 

I can not make up my mind if you are intentionally misquoting me, or you are reading attitude into my posts where none exists, or if you simply do not understand the concept of a question. This is what happened:

 

Moontanman stated: I know what you asserted is simply not true, I knew it the first time you asserted it,

 

Gees responded: How did you know? I did not take you for a person who studies the Old Testament.

 

iNow, when a person states the words, "How did you know" and puts a question mark at the end of those words, then it is a request for information. If, in fact, Moontanman knows something about this, I would like to find out what (s)he knows as I do not like being ignorant, hence the request.

 

At no time, and in no way, does a request translate to, "doesn't mean they fail to adequately understand your position or the information underlying it." Your statement makes no sense. It appears that you are confused.

 

Possibly your confusion comes from my doubts about Moontanman studying the Old Testament. But I came by these doubts quite honestly. In the thread, "Free Thought Exchange", which you started, some of Moontanman's statements were the reason for my doubts, as follows:

 

"only religion can threaten you beyond the grave.... "

 

"No, no one else can dehumanize you and threaten you beyond the grave, this is avery important point, please think about it..."

 

"This is very important to understand, a man can be made to do quite a bit if he believes that even death cannot rescue him... "

 

"A normally good man can be motivated to do horrific things once he believes in eternal hell fire as a punishment for all crimes, minor and or major."

 

"you have no choice eternal hell fire awaits you and her...."

 

"Because no other world view can punish you beyond the grave... that is a unique aspect of religion, one that allows it to make good men commit evil deeds..."

 

By the time I quit that thread, I was shocked and wondering if Moontanman thought that the clergy were magical and could follow people beyond death, or if (s)he had some great trauma involving religion, or if (s)he was just too emotional to think clearly in this type of matter, hence my doubts.

 

If I am wrong in my initial assessment of the hygiene issue in the OT, I would like to learn whatever information that I am missing. This is why I made the request. I can be wrong, but I can also learn.

 

G

[iNow]

I was obviously referring to your comment that you did not take him for someone who studies/studied the OT, not your question of "how did you know." Perhaps that will clarify what you see as confusion.

[Moontanman]

Gees, first of all I was raised in a Christian fundamentalist family, I can't imagine not picking up on what the bible says mainly because much of it was driven down my throat like a ram rod. In my adult life I have striven to understand what it really means. Reading the bible as a book instead of the little cherry picked sound bites given out in bible school was a revelation in of it's self. Now at 58 I feel I have a reasonable grasp of just how obtuse and wrong the bible really is.

 

The passages you mentioned are often claimed as evidence of special knowledge in the bible but in reality it is nothing more than religious hokum and nothing to do with clean or unclean as we would define it now in a non religious context. My question to you is why would you assert it if you knew it was wrong...

 

If you want an explanation of the quotes of the other thread I suggest you ask me in that thread... I'll be glad to explain in detail... btw, just to be sure, you are aware of the concept of hell aren't you?

Edited July 6, 2013 by Moontanman

[cladking]

The passages you mentioned are often claimed as evidence of special knowledge in the bible but in reality it is nothing more than religious hokum and nothing to do with clean or unclean as we would define it now in a non religious context. My question to you is why would you assert it if you knew it was wrong...

 

 

...And where exactly do you think this religious hokum originated?

 

I can tell you exactly but then this post would be split off into another thread in speculations so instead let me just say that the writers of the Bible obviously had at their disposal numerous very old books. It's a virtually foregone conclusion that these were adapted for use to tell a story and that most of them are gone and lost forever. No books survive from before 2000 BC other than fragments and unintelligible works but such ancient books and copies of them probably did survive in the days the "sacred works" of the Bible were compiled. We see "impossible" and highly implausible stories and rather than trying to interpret thenm in ways that make sense we simply dismiss the authors as sun added bumpkins.

 

The bottom line superstition and religion never invented nor discovered anything (beyond religious philosophy) and it required as much skill and theory to invent agriculture and cities as it does for beavers to dam a creek; maybe even more. Human history before 2000 BC wasn't invented through superstition. It wasn't religion that led to the invention of writing. We assume the human race has always been confused and superstitious but there is no evidence to support it. There is only interpretation of pot shards and the reason bones were arranged in graves as they were.

 

There is no such thing as a "subconscious" but there are numerous events occurring beneath consciousness. We wire our brains by our experiences, language, and beliefs and activity occurs at levels outside our consciousness. It's easy to train yourself to solve problems in your sleep and ideas can leep forth from mental activity that is not part of our consciousness. We can see the most subtle clues at times especially, as Gees suggests, when they involve people we care about. This isn't to say I necessarily believe in ESP but people who pay attention to such things will see inexplicaple or very difficult to explain phenomena. These can often sound even more implausible than a woman turning into a pillar of salt or Enoch living 365 years before going on a long tutorial with the Creator.

 

There are more things on heaven and earth...

 

...Than anyone might imagine.

[Gees]

Moontanman;

 

Thank you for your honest and sincere response. Please consider my thoughts in this regard, as follows;

 

Gees, first of all I was raised in a Christian fundamentalist family, I can't imagine not picking up on what the bible says mainly because much of it was driven down my throat like a ram rod. In my adult life I have striven to understand what it really means.

 

Well, I was raised in a Catholic family, but nothing was rammed down my throat. My Mother had the belief that children should be exposed to as much knowledge as possible, but should also be encouraged to think their own thoughts, accept their own beliefs, and choose their own understandings. We always went to church on Sundays when I was little, but it was a friendly place that brought me no trauma.

 

When I was eight years old, I had the shocking experience to discover that my school teacher could be wrong. Not only could she be wrong, but when the truth was logically pointed out, she denied it, which made me think that she was somewhat stupid. This was public school and had nothing to do with religion, but it taught me that if I wanted to find truth, I was on my own.

 

Reading the bible as a book instead of the little cherry picked sound bites given out in bible school was a revelation in of it's self. Now at 58 I feel I have a reasonable grasp of just how obtuse and wrong the bible really is.

 

I can understand your opinions, but can't agree with them. I first decided to learn what was in the OT of the Bible at 15 years old and started to read it. Some of it was interesting, most of it boring, but early on I came across a passage that explained God's vicious nature and got angry. In this passage, God explained (I am paraphrasing here) that if we did not follow his laws, he would punish us, our children, and our children's children for, I believe it was, seven generations--and that was the punishment for people who loved God. For people who did not love God and follow his laws, the punishment went on for something like 100 generations, or some idiotic number. I was furious and knew that this book did not tell me about any God that I knew or cared about.

 

It was about 20 years later when I reached for the Bible again, looking for understanding of consciousness. I was older, wiser, and looked at the same passage with new eyes. I had already learned that interpretation is one of the most relevant things to consider when studying consciousness because people tend to interpret things through their beliefs and their personal experiences. It had become clear that the Jews of old interpret everything in terms of good and bad and punishment for the bad, so they were a somewhat savage and backward society that was attempting to learn the rules of civilization. Much like a child sees everything as good and bad, with punishment as the difference.

 

So when reviewing that passage, I deleted the "punishment" aspect and just looked at the facts. If I lived in that time and committed murder, what would happen? Well I would be killed, so what would happen to my family? It is likely that they would be ridiculed, ostracized, and maybe even lose their property and become beggers. How would that affect their children? Well the children of ridiculed beggers and grandchildren of a murderer would not do well in society and would carry emotional scars due to the shame. So what about their children? How many generations would pass before my crime was washed from my family? Seven? What we know about psychology today suggests that seven is a reasonable possibility--and that would be if we were trying.

 

So what are we talking about here? Is it a vicious God? Or is it an interpretation by a savage culture of what is actually wisdom? It is wise to remember that my family will bear scars for my crimes. There is a great deal of wisdom in the Bible, but one must look past the ignorant interpretations.

 

It is also important to note that the first six books are mostly a validation of authority and a set of rules or laws to live by. The rest of the OT is a history of the people, that is going to be from their perspective and not necessarily accurate. The NT is mostly about a philosophy until you get to the end and then it is about prophesy. It is important to keep these divisions in mind when considering the Bible.

 

The passages you mentioned are often claimed as evidence of special knowledge in the bible but in reality it is nothing more than religious hokum and nothing to do with clean or unclean as we would define it now in a non religious context. My question to you is why would you assert it if you knew it was wrong...

 

You misunderstand me. I never said that I knew that is was wrong, and I don't know that it is wrong. What I asked is if there is something that I don't already know about it.

 

All knowledge comes from somewhere, as Cladking has noted, and I have no idea what "special knowledge" is about. If you are implying that "special knowledge" is knowledge from God, then I do not agree. The knowledge in the Bible did not come from God. Can I prove this? Logically, yes.

 

If you go back to the Books of Law, you will find many different laws that regard a man's limits in whom, he can lay with. He can not lay with his father's wife, or his son's wife, or his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, or even his slave (unless he is willing to make reparations in the event of her pregnancy). There are lists of women that a man can not lay with, but missing from these lists is the man's daughter. Now the Law does admonish a man to not "make a whore" of his daughter, which seems to mean that he can lay with her, but not pass her around, and he must ensure that someone is willing to take her to wife when he is done with her. To me this does not appear to be an oversight that a God would make, and seems more like an oversight that a man would make. Either that, or incest is best.

 

This belief is evident in the story of Lot. Lot is a man who leads his people into a city that is destroyed "by God". When he escapes, he has his wife and two "virginal" daughters. The wife turns into a pillar of salt, and his two "virginal" daughters get him drunk and seduce him because they love him so much that they want to carry on his line. This is the story he told.

 

His story is obviously true as it is well known that virgins are always trying to seduce old men. This is why virgins are not allowed to work in nursing homes, because the old men would die and not be able to pay the child support. (chuckle chuckle)

 

Here is my take on this. Lot was a leader, so he was a bit of a politician. He led his people to destruction, but escaped, so he needed a good story. So, the cities were bad, he was good, hence his escape. He did everything that he could to save the people, hence he is a good leader. His wife came out with him, hence she is also good. But she was a little naughty by looking back, so she was punished, hence no reflection on him. His daughters were virginal, hence they were good. They were also pregnant, but that was because they were devoted to him, hence they are also good.

 

Do we have any evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah were fulll of evil people? Did his wife turn into salt, or did she dump him and stay in the city? Did he impregnate his daughters, or was it someone else? We will never know the truth of this story, but it is clear that laying with his daughters was accepted.

 

If you consider the Laws that I talked about in the thread, "Free Thought Exchange", and the laws that were not addressed, you will note that the unaddressed issues were all women's issues. The roots of our Common (moral) Laws are in the Bible, but issues not addressed; right to die, abortion, the mentally ill, what to do with a deformed newborn, are all issues that are routinely handled by the women of the family. There is no women's wisdom in the first six Books of the Bible. It does not exist.

 

So, either God is a god of men only, or the Bible was written by men for men.

 

If you want an explanation of the quotes of the other thread I suggest you ask me in that thread... I'll be glad to explain in detail... btw, just to be sure, you are aware of the concept of hell aren't you?

 

I already have the explanation; "I was raised in a Christian fundamentalist family, I can't imagine not picking up on what the bible says mainly because much of it was driven down my throat like a ram rod."

 

So far, I view the concepts of Heaven and Hell as superstitions. I have yet to get to the bottom of those ideas.

 

G

[Moontanman]

Moontanman;

 

Thank you for your honest and sincere response. Please consider my thoughts in this regard, as follows;

 

 

Well, I was raised in a Catholic family, but nothing was rammed down my throat. My Mother had the belief that children should be exposed to as much knowledge as possible, but should also be encouraged to think their own thoughts, accept their own beliefs, and choose their own understandings. We always went to church on Sundays when I was little, but it was a friendly place that brought me no trauma.

 

When I was eight years old, I had the shocking experience to discover that my school teacher could be wrong. Not only could she be wrong, but when the truth was logically pointed out, she denied it, which made me think that she was somewhat stupid. This was public school and had nothing to do with religion, but it taught me that if I wanted to find truth, I was on my own.

 

 

I can understand your opinions, but can't agree with them. I first decided to learn what was in the OT of the Bible at 15 years old and started to read it. Some of it was interesting, most of it boring, but early on I came across a passage that explained God's vicious nature and got angry. In this passage, God explained (I am paraphrasing here) that if we did not follow his laws, he would punish us, our children, and our children's children for, I believe it was, seven generations--and that was the punishment for people who loved God. For people who did not love God and follow his laws, the punishment went on for something like 100 generations, or some idiotic number. I was furious and knew that this book did not tell me about any God that I knew or cared about.

 

It was about 20 years later when I reached for the Bible again, looking for understanding of consciousness. I was older, wiser, and looked at the same passage with new eyes. I had already learned that interpretation is one of the most relevant things to consider when studying consciousness because people tend to interpret things through their beliefs and their personal experiences. It had become clear that the Jews of old interpret everything in terms of good and bad and punishment for the bad, so they were a somewhat savage and backward society that was attempting to learn the rules of civilization. Much like a child sees everything as good and bad, with punishment as the difference.

 

So when reviewing that passage, I deleted the "punishment" aspect and just looked at the facts. If I lived in that time and committed murder, what would happen? Well I would be killed, so what would happen to my family? It is likely that they would be ridiculed, ostracized, and maybe even lose their property and become beggers. How would that affect their children? Well the children of ridiculed beggers and grandchildren of a murderer would not do well in society and would carry emotional scars due to the shame. So what about their children? How many generations would pass before my crime was washed from my family? Seven? What we know about psychology today suggests that seven is a reasonable possibility--and that would be if we were trying.

 

So what are we talking about here? Is it a vicious God? Or is it an interpretation by a savage culture of what is actually wisdom? It is wise to remember that my family will bear scars for my crimes. There is a great deal of wisdom in the Bible, but one must look past the ignorant interpretations.

 

It is also important to note that the first six books are mostly a validation of authority and a set of rules or laws to live by. The rest of the OT is a history of the people, that is going to be from their perspective and not necessarily accurate. The NT is mostly about a philosophy until you get to the end and then it is about prophesy. It is important to keep these divisions in mind when considering the Bible.

 

 

You misunderstand me. I never said that I knew that is was wrong, and I don't know that it is wrong. What I asked is if there is something that I don't already know about it.

 

All knowledge comes from somewhere, as Cladking has noted, and I have no idea what "special knowledge" is about. If you are implying that "special knowledge" is knowledge from God, then I do not agree. The knowledge in the Bible did not come from God. Can I prove this? Logically, yes.

 

If you go back to the Books of Law, you will find many different laws that regard a man's limits in whom, he can lay with. He can not lay with his father's wife, or his son's wife, or his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, or even his slave (unless he is willing to make reparations in the event of her pregnancy). There are lists of women that a man can not lay with, but missing from these lists is the man's daughter. Now the Law does admonish a man to not "make a whore" of his daughter, which seems to mean that he can lay with her, but not pass her around, and he must ensure that someone is willing to take her to wife when he is done with her. To me this does not appear to be an oversight that a God would make, and seems more like an oversight that a man would make. Either that, or incest is best.

 

This belief is evident in the story of Lot. Lot is a man who leads his people into a city that is destroyed "by God". When he escapes, he has his wife and two "virginal" daughters. The wife turns into a pillar of salt, and his two "virginal" daughters get him drunk and seduce him because they love him so much that they want to carry on his line. This is the story he told.

 

His story is obviously true as it is well known that virgins are always trying to seduce old men. This is why virgins are not allowed to work in nursing homes, because the old men would die and not be able to pay the child support. (chuckle chuckle)

 

Here is my take on this. Lot was a leader, so he was a bit of a politician. He led his people to destruction, but escaped, so he needed a good story. So, the cities were bad, he was good, hence his escape. He did everything that he could to save the people, hence he is a good leader. His wife came out with him, hence she is also good. But she was a little naughty by looking back, so she was punished, hence no reflection on him. His daughters were virginal, hence they were good. They were also pregnant, but that was because they were devoted to him, hence they are also good.

 

Do we have any evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah were fulll of evil people? Did his wife turn into salt, or did she dump him and stay in the city? Did he impregnate his daughters, or was it someone else? We will never know the truth of this story, but it is clear that laying with his daughters was accepted.

 

If you consider the Laws that I talked about in the thread, "Free Thought Exchange", and the laws that were not addressed, you will note that the unaddressed issues were all women's issues. The roots of our Common (moral) Laws are in the Bible, but issues not addressed; right to die, abortion, the mentally ill, what to do with a deformed newborn, are all issues that are routinely handled by the women of the family. There is no women's wisdom in the first six Books of the Bible. It does not exist.

 

So, either God is a god of men only, or the Bible was written by men for men.

 

 

I already have the explanation; "I was raised in a Christian fundamentalist family, I can't imagine not picking up on what the bible says mainly because much of it was driven down my throat like a ram rod."

 

So far, I view the concepts of Heaven and Hell as superstitions. I have yet to get to the bottom of those ideas.

 

G

 

 

First of all much of what you say is just apologetics, either cherry picking the parts you agree with over the parts you do not like or explaining away behaviors that are immoral. Most modern mono theistic religions especially the fundamentalist ones rely heavily on the threat of hell to control their "flock" Religion can, if you truly believe, cause you eternal pain and torment for not doing what ever you are commanded to do. For some of us in this day and age this is a difficult concept, but the New Testament clearly states that non believers will burn in hell.

 

So if you are a true believer then you have to do what ever you are told and all sorts of atrocities were committed by just regular people due to this effect. In the US these fundamentalist groups are taking over mainstream religion or at the very least are driving it from the fringes. In my state the constitution was changed so that homosexuals could be denied their constitutional rights, this is happening all over the country.

 

A few hundred years ago religion was used as an excuse to commit horrific atrocities in the names of god, and the threat of hell fire is why it worked so well. Even in modren times religion is being used this way and the threat of eternal punishment is how it is done.

 

By the way, Lots daughters got preggers by date raping their dad, how can this be dismissed as good?

 

Stop using apologetics to justify the atrocities in the bible, stop defining what it says and read what it really says, when you do this and realize currently a majority of the people are actually promoting this as absolute truth and objective morality it becomes far more problematic.

 

Feel free to point out that wisdom in the bible...

 

Another thing to think of is that lot offered his daughters to a crowd of men to be gang raped to protect angels that were visiting him... really....

[Gees]

First of all much of what you say is just apologetics, either cherry picking the parts you agree with over the parts you do not like or explaining away behaviors that are immoral. Most modern mono theistic religions especially the fundamentalist ones rely heavily on the threat of hell to control their "flock" Religion can, if you truly believe, cause you eternal pain and torment for not doing what ever you are commanded to do. For some of us in this day and age this is a difficult concept, but the New Testament clearly states that non believers will burn in hell.

 

So if you are a true believer then you have to do what ever you are told and all sorts of atrocities were committed by just regular people due to this effect. In the US these fundamentalist groups are taking over mainstream religion or at the very least are driving it from the fringes. In my state the constitution was changed so that homosexuals could be denied their constitutional rights, this is happening all over the country.

 

A few hundred years ago religion was used as an excuse to commit horrific atrocities in the names of god, and the threat of hell fire is why it worked so well. Even in modren times religion is being used this way and the threat of eternal punishment is how it is done.

 

By the way, Lots daughters got preggers by date raping their dad, how can this be dismissed as good?

 

Stop using apologetics to justify the atrocities in the bible, stop defining what it says and read what it really says, when you do this and realize currently a majority of the people are actually promoting this as absolute truth and objective morality it becomes far more problematic.

 

Feel free to point out that wisdom in the bible...

 

Another thing to think of is that lot offered his daughters to a crowd of men to be gang raped to protect angels that were visiting him... really....

 

Moontanman;

 

I apologize for taking so long to respond, but everytime that I read your above post, I become so furious that I can not think. So I decided to review this whole matter.

 

I wrote:

 

If you look through Deuteronomy and Leviticus, the Books of Law, you will find a great deal that protects against germs, couched in the dogma "clean" and "unclean". But how could they have known about germs? Post # 31

And you responded:

 

Please show some support for these assertions I have underlined. Post # 35

Your request surprised me for a number of reasons; first, there is no assertion there. There is an offer to share an observation and a question. Second, this is not uncommon knowledge. Third, you have presented yourself as a person knowledgable about religion and the Bible, so you should know about this. So why would you request the information?

 

In post # 53, you explained that this information is a "common assumption in religious circles". Finally in post # 60, is your admission of knowledge, as follows:

 

The passages you mentioned are often claimed as evidence of special knowledge in the bible but in reality it is nothing more than religious hokum and nothing to do with clean or unclean as we would define it now in a non religious context.

Approximately one-fifth of this thread is devoted to your stubborn insistence that I provide information to you that you already have. Then you finally admit that your problem with the information is that it is "special knowledge", but I never stated anything close to that. So it was a strawman argument that you have been pursuing for half of this thread, because you want to argue about religion. Then you throw in ridiculous nonsense like, Lot's daughters DATE RAPED him. You are off topic, and considering other threads that I have read and your post count, it appears that you are well established in this manipulative behavior.

 

Honest intent and integrity are the most vital things that must be brought to a philosophy forum. You attempted to manipulate me, you were dishonest in your concealment of knowledge, and you twisted an offer to share information into an assertion about "special knowledge". And you did all of this on the basis of your Christian Fundamentalist teachings that corrupted truth and taught you to despise religion. There is no honesty or integrity in this.

 

If I went into a science forum and asserted that my opinion was more important than accurate measures, how long do you think I would last? In a philosophy forum, your opinions are never going to have more value than reason, logic, honest intent, and integrity.

 

You do understand that this thread is about the supernatural and consciousness, not about Moontanman's opinions on religion--don't you?

 

G

 

[Moontanman]

Moontanman;

 

I apologize for taking so long to respond, but everytime that I read your above post, I become so furious that I can not think. So I decided to review this whole matter.

 

I congratulate you for holding your temper.

 

 

 

 

I wrote:

 

And you responded:

 

Your request surprised me for a number of reasons; first, there is no assertion there. There is an offer to share an observation and a question. Second, this is not uncommon knowledge. Third, you have presented yourself as a person knowledgable about religion and the Bible, so you should know about this. So why would you request the information?

 

You made this positive assertion

 

If you look through Deuteronomy and Leviticus, the Books of Law, you will find a great deal that protects against germs, couched in the dogma "clean" and "unclean". But how could they have known about germs? Post # 31

 

 

You are obligated to back up positive assertions with evidence, please read the forum rules...

 

In post # 53, you explained that this information is a "common assumption in religious circles". Finally in post # 60, is your admission of knowledge, as follows:

 

Approximately one-fifth of this thread is devoted to your stubborn insistence that I provide information to you that you already have. Then you finally admit that your problem with the information is that it is "special knowledge", but I never stated anything close to that. So it was a strawman argument that you have been pursuing for half of this thread, because you want to argue about religion. Then you throw in ridiculous nonsense like, Lot's daughters DATE RAPED him. You are off topic, and considering other threads that I have read and your post count, it appears that you are well established in this manipulative behavior.

 

You brought that up in your post, I responded...

 

Honest intent and integrity are the most vital things that must be brought to a philosophy forum. You attempted to manipulate me, you were dishonest in your concealment of knowledge, and you twisted an offer to share information into an assertion about "special knowledge". And you did all of this on the basis of your Christian Fundamentalist teachings that corrupted truth and taught you to despise religion. There is no honesty or integrity in this.

 

I disagree, I suggest you report me to a moderator.

 

If I went into a science forum and asserted that my opinion was more important than accurate measures, how long do you think I would last? In a philosophy forum, your opinions are never going to have more value than reason, logic, honest intent, and integrity.

 

You do understand that this thread is about the supernatural and consciousness, not about Moontanman's opinions on religion--don't you?

 

G

 

Since I was answering your questions I suggest you read the rules and or report me...

BTW my views are not limited to "my christian fundamentalist understanding" of religion, that was 50 years ago and i do pay a modicum of attention to what is happening in the world, you asked questions, I answered them.... you made a positive assertion i asked for evidence...

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Can we move back to a more substantive discussion of the issues rather than a technical argument about procedural niceties. There has been a fair bit of rhetoric and a touch of sophistry in this thread already; it would be nice if we could return to a debate based on facts.

 

Gees - several times you have made imputations regarding the persona and characteristics of other posters; this has to stop now. And if you introduce a source - then you must expect it to be criticised; this extends to books of religion. As there is little to no empirical evidence in these areas, issues of self-contradiction, consistency and motivation must form part of the critique of these works of a religious nature.

 

Moon - I understand your argument; mainly because I agree with it and have seen you make it many times previously. Perhaps your familiarity with the topic has lead to a slight abbreviation of the stages of the expostion; this has maybe lead to a perception of peremptory dismissiveness and intransigence.

 

[Gees]

!

Moderator Note

 

Can we move back to a more substantive discussion of the issues rather than a technical argument about procedural niceties. There has been a fair bit of rhetoric and a touch of sophistry in this thread already; it would be nice if we could return to a debate based on facts.

 

Imatfaal;

 

Thank you for taking the time to make your recommendation. I would very much like to get back to a "substantive discussion", but I don't know that it is possible. If you will review my original post, you will note that I ended it with questions. The reason for this is that questions invite discussion, and that is what I was looking for--discussion.

 

In Philosophy there is Socratic Discussion and Philosophical Debate--these are two entirely different procedures that do not work well when intertwined. Socratic Discussion is open dialogue that seeks information and learning, so it is a valuable tool to use in developing a theory. Philosophical Debate is closed dialogue where two or more parties attempt to fortify or prove their positions, so it is a valuable tool in proving a theory.

 

I can provide a simple breakdown of the two concepts, if you are interested.

 

While reviewing the Rules regarding the Philosophy Forum, when I first started posting, I noted that there seemed to be no distinction between these two concepts, which is often the case in forums. Please note the following contradicting quotes from the Rules:

 

To maintain a reasonable standard of debate

 

This is a forum for discussion, not lectures or debates.

.

So Moontanman could feel perfectly justified in debating religion in the middle of a discussion about consciousness, but the results would be counterproductive to all concerned.

 

Gees - several times you have made imputations regarding the persona and characteristics of other posters; this has to stop now. And if you introduce a source - then you must expect it to be criticised; this extends to books of religion. As there is little to no empirical evidence in these areas, issues of self-contradiction, consistency and motivation must form part of the critique of these works of a religious nature.

 

Well, I certainly can not argue with the first statement as I have already noted, I am entirely too passionate and forthright in my opinions. And, of course, I did start this thread comparing the nay sayers to screaming virgins, but I thought that was kind of funny, and I was looking for a way to get past the people who deny before they think. I spend a lot of time apologizing.

 

As for introducing sources, let us be honest here. Consciousness is relevant to everything--to every discipline in science, every philosophy, every religion, every life form, every culture and society, even the universe. So if I can not control the subject matter, then this discussion is a waste of time and should be relegated to the 1,000 years of discussion and debate that preceded it.

 

Moon - I understand your argument; mainly because I agree with it and have seen you make it many times previously.

 

 

This statement, I actually resent. Either you have not read this thread and do not know that religion and the supernatural are simply by-products of consciousness, or you have read this thread and I have not yet made it clear. The only other possibility that I can see would be if my initial interpretation of the Rules is correct.

 

In the Rules for this forum, it is pretty clear that both, Philosophy and Religion, are regarded as beliefs. Philosophy is no more a belief than science is, so other people are not the only ones being insulted here.

 

G

For your review:

 

Socratic Dialogue not Debate

Dialogue:

Is collaborative: multiple sides work toward shared understanding.

One listens to understand, to make meaning, to find common ground.

Enlarges and possibly changes a participant’s point of view.

Creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change.

In dialogue, one submits one’s best thinking, expecting that other people’s reflections will help improve it rather than threaten it.

Calls for temporarily suspending one’s beliefs.

One searches for strength in all positions.

Respects all the other participants and seeks not to alienate or offend.

Assumes that many people have pieces of answers and that cooperation can lead to greater understanding.

Remains open-ended

 

Debate:

Is oppositional: two opposing sides try to prove each other wrong.

One listens to find flaws, spot differences, and counter arguments.

Defends assumptions as truth.

Creates a close-minded attitude: a determination to be right.

In debate, one submits one’s best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right.

Calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs.

One searches for weaknesses in the other position.

Rebuts contrary positions and may belittle or depreciate other participants.

Assumes a single right answer that somebody already has.

Demands a conclusion

 

[Gees]

Moontanman;

As long as this thread is going to hell in a handbasket, there is no reason for me to not tell the truth. So consider the following paragraph that started this whole mess.

The Bible is relevant to my studies, and I find it interesting that the Old Testament is about an invisible god, who is very concerned with physical things. This is a god of war and government and laws; many of our current Common Laws are rooted in these laws. This god also seems overly concerned with hygiene and food supplies. If you look through Deuteronomy and Leviticus, the Books of Law, you will find a great deal that protects against germs, couched in the dogma "clean" and "unclean". But how could they have known about germs?

If you review the first sentence of this paragraph, you will note the assertion. I assert that an invisible god seems to be very concerned with physical things. This is rather odd, because one would expect a spiritual god to be concerned with spiritual things, and a physical god to be concerned with physical things. That was the point. Then I demonstrated that point by noting different physical things that this god was concerned with.

Did you challenge my assertion? No. Did you challence that he was a god of war? No. Did you challenge that he was concerned with government? No. Did you challenge that he was concerned with laws? No. Did you challenge that he was concerned with hygiene? No. Did you challenge that he was concerned with food supplies? No. What you challenged was "germs" because this is one thing that you know about and dislike--your personal pet peeve.

I am a philosopher, which means that I study truth and think a lot. When considering something, it is important to note what is selected, but it is just as important to note what is not selected, so I knew at the time, that your selection of the "germs" part of the paragraph was personal and nothing to do with my assertion. I also new that it was off point and ancillary to the subject. You were BSing me, and claimed no knowledge of this information, as follows:

Post # 39 And i asked for a citation, not a idea of where I should go to verify your assertions, if it says what you claim in the bible then cite chapter and verse, i assure you I am quite capable of looking things up in the bible, but you made the assertion i asked you to show it to me. I say prove it, I am unaware of any passage in the places you suggested that say anything about that.

Of course, that was a lie as is demonstrated by your subsequent statements:

The passages you mentioned are often claimed as evidence of special knowledge in the bible but in reality it is nothing more than religious hokum and nothing to do with clean or unclean as we would define it now in a non religious context. My question to you is why would you assert it if you knew it was wrong...

The thing that I find interesting here is your use of the word "passages", plurel. Clearly you knew that I would have to search out both Books of Law to find the different passages that are distributed throughout them in order to prove something that you already knew, intended to deny, and I did not even care about as it was not my point. What amazed me the most was that you were so willing to work me for no reason, except maybe to make yourself feel important. I find this disgusting as I am half blind.

Gees, you underestimate me, I know what you asserted is simply not true, I knew it the first time you asserted it, that in of itself casts doubt on the veracity of all your anecdotal claims as well, anecdotal evidence is about as good as "everyone knows it's true" anyway anything that can be claimed with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence...

No, I do not underestimate you, but will admit that I could not see why you were so stubbornly insistent until I read your above paragraph. This is all about strategy. You attempted to manipulate me into a position where everything that I have stated is in doubt. You intended to malign my character, shred my credibility, and show me as a person with no integrity. Your behavior is underhanded, dishonest, and highly manipulative. This is how one promotes ignorance. It is not philosophy.

G

[iNow]

You intended to malign my character, shred my credibility, and show me as a person with no integrity. Your behavior is underhanded, dishonest, and highly manipulative.

 

So much for focusing on imatfaal's feedback and focusing on content instead of the person.

 

I also find it curious that you pretend to know the motivations of others. You cannot possibly know what motivations or intentions others hold, yet you claim you do when you make comments such as the above.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman;

 

As long as this thread is going to hell in a handbasket, there is no reason for me to not tell the truth. So consider the following paragraph that started this whole mess.

 

If you review the first sentence of this paragraph, you will note the assertion. I assert that an invisible god seems to be very concerned with physical things. This is rather odd, because one would expect a spiritual god to be concerned with spiritual things, and a physical god to be concerned with physical things. That was the point. Then I demonstrated that point by noting different physical things that this god was concerned with.

 

Did you challenge my assertion? No. Did you challence that he was a god of war? No. Did you challenge that he was concerned with government? No. Did you challenge that he was concerned with laws? No. Did you challenge that he was concerned with hygiene? No. Did you challenge that he was concerned with food supplies? No. What you challenged was "germs" because this is one thing that you know about and dislike--your personal pet peeve.

 

I am a philosopher, which means that I study truth and think a lot. When considering something, it is important to note what is selected, but it is just as important to note what is not selected, so I knew at the time, that your selection of the "germs" part of the paragraph was personal and nothing to do with my assertion. I also new that it was off point and ancillary to the subject. You were BSing me, and claimed no knowledge of this information, as follows:

 

Of course, that was a lie as is demonstrated by your subsequent statements:

 

The thing that I find interesting here is your use of the word "passages", plurel. Clearly you knew that I would have to search out both Books of Law to find the different passages that are distributed throughout them in order to prove something that you already knew, intended to deny, and I did not even care about as it was not my point. What amazed me the most was that you were so willing to work me for no reason, except maybe to make yourself feel important. I find this disgusting as I am half blind.

 

No, I do not underestimate you, but will admit that I could not see why you were so stubbornly insistent until I read your above paragraph. This is all about strategy. You attempted to manipulate me into a position where everything that I have stated is in doubt. You intended to malign my character, shred my credibility, and show me as a person with no integrity. Your behavior is underhanded, dishonest, and highly manipulative. This is how one promotes ignorance. It is not philosophy.

 

G

 

 

No... you did that all by your self...

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I did ask for the thread to get back to the substance; if there is any more discussion about rules, the protocols of debate etc. I will close the thread.

 

 

....

 

Thank you for reviewing my moderation - there was no need for this, and in fact we prefer it if the thread goes back to the topic rather than become an argument with the modnote. Please bear this in mind. And by the by - might be best not to refer to Socratic Dialogue as collaborative when trying to teach people about philosophy; collaborators do not sting people and whip them into a fury.

 

Moontanman;
...

No, I do not underestimate you, but will admit that I could not see why you were so stubbornly insistent until I read your above paragraph. This is all about strategy. You attempted to manipulate me into a position where everything that I have stated is in doubt. You intended to malign my character, shred my credibility, and show me as a person with no integrity. Your behavior is underhanded, dishonest, and highly manipulative. This is how one promotes ignorance. It is not philosophy.

G

 

I told you not to attack other members, not to impugn their characters, and not to impute negative motivation; if you do so again action will be taken. Be warned.

 

Do not respond within the thread to this moderation - you can report this message if you feel it is unjust

 

[cladking]

Part of the problem with this thread may be the title. Most scientific people have a knee-jerk reaction to the "supernatural". It's only a word but most of us have a mechanistic view of reality and believe that nothing can exist outside of the laws of nature. It's not even relevant that we hardly can begin to understand nature because the assumption is nothing exists outside of it.

 

I once lived about eight minutes from a stoplight that separated me from my job. When I got about four minutes away I could see where it was in its ~1 1/2 minute cycle. Virtually every morning I'd get to the light just as it turned green (30 sec green). I rarely had the sense that I was adjusting my speed to catch the light though sometimes it was necessary to slow or speed slightly to get it. It was not on a clock.

 

People attend to things that are important to them. They see what they expect and can't see what they don't expect. They believe what they want to believe and in time become those beliefs.

 

Perhaps "inexplicable" or "not yet explained" would be a better word than "supernatural". "Superstitious" might be a more apt term to explain the way our brains are wired. Observations are probably usually correct but they can be warped by a poor or improper perspective. A small slice of reality might not look like reality at all especially if the perspective is off. A scientific perspective will sometimes be the wrong perspective toward trying to understand what we see though, obviously, explanations must always revolve around logic and facts iff they exist. This isn't to say religion, magic, etc are improper in any way, merely that they have historically proven ineffective at understanding nature.

Edited July 9, 2013 by cladking

[science4ever]

Words like supernatural is a kind of code word? A word that points out expertize

Science is not supposed to be able to say anything reliable about the supernatural.

 

the word makes it taboo for scientists to deal with it. Priests and Paranormal

and alternative Medicine and New Agers and maybe MythBusters are seen as the experts?

 

Science can only deal with what is natural. "Natural Science" What can be measured.

So the supernatural is a kind of social tool for saying that you need other experts.

 

A ghost buster or a medium or channeler or a priest or pastor or a wicca person or ...

They have tried to carve or digged into a niche where they can be left alone from criticism

due to how they define their supernatural myth it either belong to a known religious tradition

and then people react with categorizing. Baptistis do such things I am this church and it is not

in our tradition. A kind of division of labor. They try to find their niche. A kind of market strategy.

 

so supernatural becomes a "noa" word. A No No for science. we do science we don't do Gods.

SJGould is famous for his support that it was two different things. Science deal with measurable things

and religion with the non-measurables. New Atheism wanted to point out it was non-compatible instead.

 

So it was a kind of cultural war going on.

[Moontanman]

Words like supernatural is a kind of code word? A word that points out expertize

Science is not supposed to be able to say anything reliable about the supernatural.

 

the word makes it taboo for scientists to deal with it. Priests and Paranormal

and alternative Medicine and New Agers and maybe MythBusters are seen as the experts?

 

Science can only deal with what is natural. "Natural Science" What can be measured.

So the supernatural is a kind of social tool for saying that you need other experts.

 

A ghost buster or a medium or channeler or a priest or pastor or a wicca person or ...

They have tried to carve or digged into a niche where they can be left alone from criticism

due to how they define their supernatural myth it either belong to a known religious tradition

and then people react with categorizing. Baptistis do such things I am this church and it is not

in our tradition. A kind of division of labor. They try to find their niche. A kind of market strategy.

 

so supernatural becomes a "noa" word. A No No for science. we do science we don't do Gods.

SJGould is famous for his support that it was two different things. Science deal with measurable things

and religion with the non-measurables. New Atheism wanted to point out it was non-compatible instead.

 

So it was a kind of cultural war going on.

 

 

I disagree, many things once thought to be supernatural have been explained, the problem is that unless a process shows some discernible effect how can you test it? So far all processes that have a discernible effect on reality have proven to be explained by natural processes... the supernatural has been driven into the same gaps god occupies, it can exist only outside the light of critical inquiry...

 

Superstition is a completely different thing, I think it might have some roots in OCD behavior and people can be superstitious about the supernatural but they can be superstitious about natural phenomena as well....

[cladking]

 

 

I disagree, many things once thought to be supernatural have been explained, the problem is that unless a process shows some discernible effect how can you test it? So far all processes that have a discernible effect on reality have proven to be explained by natural processes... the supernatural has been driven into the same gaps god occupies, it can exist only outside the light of critical inquiry...

 

 

You're speaking of repeatable observations and things that can be measured. Science and measurement simply doesn't apply to many things that are one of a kind or can't be duplicated. Obviously that something happens only once or is fleeting does not mean it exists outside of natural laws but many people see a pattern to some of these events and attribute them to deities, magic, or one of manty categories into which these events might fit.

 

For instance, I one saw an asphalt surface broken up into a checker board pattern that had diamonds rather than squares. This was a quite regular failure but the pattern became more distorted and irregular away from the "center". This isn't extremely unusual but what was remarkable is that every other diamond was wet so it was colored similarly to a checker board. I could not deternmine a cause for this nor even form a reasonable hypothesis. I've seen similar patterns in nature such as moisture on the leaves of redbud trees after a rain. For some of these I have found a cause.

 

While there is no group of people who believe road gravel plays chess when we aren't looking there are some people who believe unusual events taken in aggrevate suggest ghosts, or deities, or ESP.

 

It seems to me that science can't answer very many practical questions so why should we be so quick to simply dismiss other attempts to organize knowledge? Mans' knowledge is exceedingly limited. This doesn't mean we should abandon the tools we use to achieve it but we need to recognize our limitations and few do. It is the fact that we have lost sight of how we came to know what we do that has allowed us to so grossly overestimate our knowledge and to dismiss other perspectives less firmly firmly rooted in our metaphysics.

 

One might be better advised getting advice on "trivialities" like marriage or retirement from a priest or a tea leaf reader than a cosmologist. Science is a very poor tool for answers to practical questions.

... A kind of division of labor. They try to find their niche. A kind of market strategy.

 

so supernatural becomes a "noa" word. A No No for science. we do science we don't do Gods.

SJGould is famous for his support that it was two different things. Science deal with measurable things

and religion with the non-measurables. New Atheism wanted to point out it was non-compatible instead.

 

So it was a kind of cultural war going on.

 

I'm sure there's some truth here.

 

Reality exists outside society. Indeed, it is only experienced outside of society.

 

The purpose for most people who study anything is to seek the reality. That this often become a niche or career choice is secondary to the belief in my opinion. How many atheist priests are likely to exist?