My Challenge to “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof”

[fin-tastic]

Hello everyone. I am hoping to get some feedback from skeptics concerning alleged supernatural events. Although I currently believe that some supernatural events are probably authentic, I am open to changing my mind. I am neither a “troll” nor a “hater,” and I have the highest respect for atheists who reach their conclusions through the objective search for truth. Thanks in advance to anyone who responds.

My Challenge to “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof”

When I ask skeptics why they don’t believe in the supernatural, they often say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I argue that skeptics also make an extraordinary claim without proof.

Throughout history, millions of people from all walks of life in every part of the world have claimed to have supernatural experiences involving ghosts, hauntings, angels, demons, miracles, near-death experiences, profound mystical or religious experiences, or whatever.  Even if 95 percent of them can be attributed to hoaxes, superstition, mental illness, or ignorance, there remain thousands of investigated, documented cases where the witness meets most or all of the following criteria:

-Professes certainty about witnessing or experiencing something that has no obvious natural or scientific explanation. Example: If someone says a coffee mug flew eight feet across the room and hit them in the face, it probaly wasn't caused by a tremor or rodents or something like that.  

-Offers testimony that is corroborated by other witnesses or fits a pattern of other reported events. If the previous occupants of the house also reported strange experiences, it lowers the probability that the current occupant is hoaxing.

-Has no history of criminality or hoaxing and comes across as sane and honest—in other words, passes the “smell test.”

-Is educated and employed in a respectable profession. This rules out dullards with nothing to lose.

-Demonstrates how the experience changed their life in some way. If the person sells their house because they're terrified and takes a huge hit financially, it adds to their credibility.

-Claims to have had no strong religious beliefs or interest in the supernatural before the experience. This lowers the probability that their perception of the event was influenced by wishful thinking or an overly active imagination.

-Seeks no payment for their story. This means that money is probably not a motive.  

-Seems reluctant to go on the record, regrets doing so after suffering public ridicule, or asks to remain anonymous. This lowers the probability that the person was just seeking attention. 

Published reports by researchers and journalists have identified thousands of *seemingly* credible people with no *obvious* motive for making up a story. There only two possible explanations:

1)      The supernatural is real.

2)      All these people are either lying or mistaken.

Both explanations are unproven, extraordinary claims. Let me be clear: It’s NOT extraordinary that someone could lie or be mistaken about a claimed supernatural event; however, it IS extraordinary that thousands of people meeting the above qualifications could be lying or mistaken—because all it takes is one authentic supernatural experience for the supernatural to be real. Furthermore, unless skeptics can investigate and debunk every single case, it’s also an unproven extraordinary claim.  

When it comes to the supernatural, it’s not a question of accepting or rejecting an extraordinary claim. It’s a question of choosing which extraordinary claim to believe. By rejecting the extraordinary claim of the supernatural, skeptics implicitly accept the extraordinary claim that all seemingly credible witnesses are lying or mistaken.  Either way, the truth is extraordinary. Therefore, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” is not a convincing rationale for rejecting belief in the supernatural. You’re simply substituting one extraordinary claim for another.

Am I wrong? If so, why?

[Rick Horton]

 

Hello everyone. I am hoping to get some feedback from skeptics concerning alleged supernatural events. Although I currently believe that some supernatural events are probably authentic, I am open to changing my mind. I am neither a “troll” nor a “hater,” and I have the highest respect for atheists who reach their conclusions through the objective search for truth. Thanks in advance to anyone who responds.

My Challenge to “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof”

When I ask skeptics why they don’t believe in the supernatural, they often say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I argue that skeptics also make an extraordinary claim without proof.

Throughout history, millions of people from all walks of life in every part of the world have claimed to have supernatural experiences involving ghosts, hauntings, angels, demons, miracles, near-death experiences, profound mystical or religious experiences, or whatever.  Even if 95 percent of them can be attributed to hoaxes, superstition, mental illness, or ignorance, there remain thousands of investigated, documented cases where the witness meets most or all of the following criteria:

-Professes certainty about witnessing or experiencing something that has no obvious natural or scientific explanation. Example: If someone says a coffee mug flew eight feet across the room and hit them in the face, it probaly wasn't caused by a tremor or rodents or something like that.  

-Offers testimony that is corroborated by other witnesses or fits a pattern of other reported events. If the previous occupants of the house also reported strange experiences, it lowers the probability that the current occupant is hoaxing.

-Has no history of criminality or hoaxing and comes across as sane and honest—in other words, passes the “smell test.”

-Is educated and employed in a respectable profession. This rules out dullards with nothing to lose.

-Demonstrates how the experience changed their life in some way. If the person sells their house because they're terrified and takes a huge hit financially, it adds to their credibility.

-Claims to have had no strong religious beliefs or interest in the supernatural before the experience. This lowers the probability that their perception of the event was influenced by wishful thinking or an overly active imagination.

-Seeks no payment for their story. This means that money is probably not a motive.  

-Seems reluctant to go on the record, regrets doing so after suffering public ridicule, or asks to remain anonymous. This lowers the probability that the person was just seeking attention. 

Published reports by researchers and journalists have identified thousands of *seemingly* credible people with no *obvious* motive for making up a story. There only two possible explanations:

1)      The supernatural is real.

2)      All these people are either lying or mistaken.

Both explanations are unproven, extraordinary claims. Let me be clear: It’s NOT extraordinary that someone could lie or be mistaken about a claimed supernatural event; however, it IS extraordinary that thousands of people meeting the above qualifications could be lying or mistaken—because all it takes is one authentic supernatural experience for the supernatural to be real. Furthermore, unless skeptics can investigate and debunk every single case, it’s also an unproven extraordinary claim.  

When it comes to the supernatural, it’s not a question of accepting or rejecting an extraordinary claim. It’s a question of choosing which extraordinary claim to believe. By rejecting the extraordinary claim of the supernatural, skeptics implicitly accept the extraordinary claim that all seemingly credible witnesses are lying or mistaken.  Either way, the truth is extraordinary. Therefore, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” is not a convincing rationale for rejecting belief in the supernatural. You’re simply substituting one extraordinary claim for another.

Am I wrong? If so, why?

 

Given the population of the earth, thousands is a drop of water in a lake. It's meaningless data. 

[lyghtningrod]

 

—because all it takes is one authentic supernatural experience for the supernatural to be real. Furthermore, unless skeptics can investigate and debunk every single case, it’s also an unproven extraordinary claim.  

 

And yet not in all of history have we a single verifiable proven supernatural event.

How would you know if there weren't any supernatural events? To be
scientific, a claim needs to be falsifiable. If you can produce a
repeatable 'supernatural event' then I'll listen.

 

When it comes to the supernatural, it’s not a question of accepting or rejecting an extraordinary claim. It’s a question of choosing which extraordinary claim to believe. 

Am I wrong? If so, why?

 

Nope, you just went off the logical rails there.

First, you are begging the question. You are investigating the validity of supernatural claims, then you assume the validity when you exclude the non supernatural ["it's a question of choosing which extraordinary claim to believe"]

coupled with a

False dichotomy. You have posited only two choices when there is at least one more, namely that neither extraordinary claim is true.

EDIT: and I hate to add, but you are also equivocating on the word 'extraordinary'

[fin-tastic]

71% of Americans claim to have had a paranormal experience.

 

 

[fin-tastic]

lyghtningrod:

Scientific evidence is only one kind of evidence. Eyewitness testimony is another kind. We depend heavily on eyewitness testimony in both our court system and our everyday lives. I would never argue that eyewitness testimony is sufficient for "proving" the truth of supernatural claims; only that it shouldn't be dismissed.

How could neither claim be true? Millions of people claim to have experienced supernatural events. They are either authentic supernatural experiences, or everyone is lying or mistaken about their supernatural character.

[lyghtningrod]

 

lyghtningrod:

Scientific evidence is only one kind of evidence. Eyewitness testimony is another kind. We depend heavily on eyewitness testimony in both our court system and our everyday lives. I would never argue that eyewitness testimony is sufficient for "proving" the truth of supernatural claims; only that it shouldn't be dismissed.

How could neither claim be true? Millions of people claim to have experienced supernatural events. They are either authentic supernatural experiences, or everyone is lying or mistaken about their supernatural character.

 

Eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable. Confirmation bias is strong. That's why science was created.

"...Lying or mistaken..."

Yes, and they are mistaken or lying until proven otherwise. They may very well have heard a voice, it doesn't mean the voice was God. They may think or claim to have seen a ghost. But it can't be proven. There's no sense trying to prove a negative, which is why they say extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

If you say you can fly, start flapping. Otherwise, well, we all have our delusions.

As for the 71% believe factoid, 96.54% (an actual percentage) of people believe government is necessary. Doesn't mean they are right nor is their delusion binding on me.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

If you say you can fly, start flapping. Otherwise, well, we all have our delusions.

 

LOL. golden

[Metric]

Does this mean I have to believe everything any group of more than a thousand otherwise respectable people claim to believe? 

This is going to take some work...

[Rick Horton]

 

Does this mean I have to believe everything any group of more than a thousand otherwise respectable people claim to believe? 

This is going to take some work...

 

Haha

[fin-tastic]

I think all of you are missing my point. I'm not arguing that the supernatural is real. I'm only pointing out that both believers and skeptics make unproven, extraordinary claims when it comes to alleged supernatural events. Therefore, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is not a convincing rationale for rejecting belief in the supernatural.

"Every single person who has ever claimed to have a supernatural experience is either lying or mistaken."

Are you saying that this claim is not at all extraordinary? What if a witness was a trusted friend or family member? What if Stefan Molyneux had a profound mystical experience and said, "I am no longer an atheist"? What if you had an experience yourself? Is there any conceivable eyewitness account that could make you believe, like I do, that some supernatural experiences are probably authentic?  

 

 

 

[Alan C.]

Millions of people claim to have experienced supernatural events.

How do they know that their experiences were supernatural rather than natural? They'd need a frame of reference to distinguish natural from supernatural. If something is inexplicable does that automatically mean that it's supernatural?

It isn't unreasonable to say that they're all mistaken. Everyone used to be mistaken about the Earth being flat.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

Am I wrong? If so, why?

 

 

 Extraordinary evidence that you're wrong? The human brain. We still do not understand how the brain processes information or how consciousness even works. We can tell which parts of th brain are responsible for certain emtions but we don't know how those parts interact with the other parts and we cannot tell how one neuron communicates with another... other than electrochemically.

 

That being said, those of us who do not accept that the supernatural exists don't actually have proof of that negative but, when we can explain the above, we will. We do know enough about the brain to know that it facilitates belief in the supernatural and, we can demonstrate that phenomena repeatedly. We also know that the brain causes people to think... they can fly.... they are Jesus... they are Yosimite Sam... et al. We know that the brain constructs "movies" for us to view while we are sleeping and we know the brain can fool us into thinking a man on a stage can pull a quarter from behind a child's ear. We also know that people share a lot in the way of environment, so it's no surprise at all that two people could think they saw the same thing that they didn't actually see. Again... the magician fools hundreds at a time.

 

In the end, you can choose to believe accounts of events and beings that science has never, ever been able to observe with any sort of instrumentation and that cannot be repeated or, you can accept that the human brain is an extraordinary illusionist.

[lyghtningrod]

 

I think all of you are missing my point. I'm not arguing that the supernatural is real. I'm only pointing out that both believers and skeptics make unproven, extraordinary claims when it comes to alleged supernatural events. Therefore, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is not a convincing rationale for rejecting belief in the supernatural.

"Every single person who has ever claimed to have a supernatural experience is either lying or mistaken."

Are you saying that this claim is not at all extraordinary? What if a witness was a trusted friend or family member? What if Stefan Molyneux had a profound mystical experience and said, "I am no longer an atheist"? What if you had an experience yourself? Is there any conceivable eyewitness account that could make you believe, like I do, that some supernatural experiences are probably authentic?  

 

 

If someone tells me he can fly, it doesn't matter how 'trusted' the person is. If they don't they go up against gravity, then they are either lying or mistaken.

As for Stef's 'mystical' experience it assumes that Stef is assuming that his experience is mystical. But 'mystical' is simply a concept used to explain an experience.

Not to put words in Stef's mouth, but I find it highly unlikely that Stef would have an experience he would consider mystical or supernatural. Ascribing an unexplained experience to 'mysticism' or 'supernatural causes' is not how a rational person approaches the world. And if Stef did talk to God, I pray to God Stef would share God's phone number. I think most of us would have some bones to pick with her.

 

[fin-tastic]

Thanks, bbeljefe. Finally, an atheist who admits that eyewitness testimony of supernatural events is extraordinary--even if has a scientific explanation we're not yet aware of.

Speaking of atheists/materialists, some atheists say they believe in the supernatural but not a deity. Does that apply to anyone here?

[fin-tastic]

I suppose you could argue, “One claim is more extraordinary than the other claim.” However, that’s a subjective judgment that depends on a person’s worldview. If you’re a committed materialist, just about any natural explanation—no matter how unlikely or preposterous it might seem given the facts and circumstances of the case—will seem less extraordinary to you than a supernatural explanation. On the other hand, if you’re open-minded about the possibility of supernatural events, it’s easier to accept a supernatural explanation for some cases than to believe that all these people are lying or mistaken.  

[Metric]

I think you have a fair point -- a-priori it's kind of remarkable that so many people could be so consistently wrong about so many things.  But this is one of the first extraordinary claims that you encounter in life with lots and lots and lots of low-hanging, extraordinary proof.  People tend to be so full of crap that at some point it becomes far easier to keep track of what they actually do know testably and reliably.

BTW, for anyone who is unfamiliar, Feynman's famous speech "Cargo Cult Science" is a must-read related to this topic:  http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

[lyghtningrod]

Well, I wouldn't describe myself as a 'committed materialist.' In fact, I don't know what that is.

I am open minded about supernatural and extraordinary claims, in that I expect to be surprised by science. When I was a child I read DIck Tracy and his special TV wristwatch. I read the other day there are more cellphones in use than toilets. That seems pretty extraordinary to me.

If some creature suddenly appeared in front of me, just appearing out of the ether, it wouldn't mean he was god, only that something beyond our experience has happened to us. Sounds exciting.

In fact, considering that scenario, that a person that looks exactly like God (which god?) appeared in front of me, all I would have is his word. Consdering that the supernatural has never been the explanation, and that indeed, science arose out of debunking 'received wisdom' I am quite comfortable in being skeptical about a supernaural explanation for anything. As a previous poster mentioned, research may indeed find answers but we aren't there yet.

Also, if there actually are supernatural events then science immediately becomes meaningless. If the rules of the universe can be overridden by some critter's whim then we are in much more danger than even the most oppressive government could ever hope to be.

 

[STer]

Thousands of people lying or being mistaken about a subjective experience doesn't strike me as the least bit extraordinary. In fact, it strikes me as quite ordinary.

[fin-tastic]

I think some of these comparisons are inappropriate.

Your best friend claiming he can fly. Claiming to have witnessed a supernatural event is totally different than claiming to have supernatural abilities.  If your best friend told you he saw someone else fly, would you believe him? That's the question.

People believing the world was flat. Claiming to have seen a ghost is totally different than saying you believe in ghosts. Most peasants in the Dark Ages believed the world was flat, but they never claimed to sail to the ends of the Earth and see it for themselves.  

Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. There are probably studies showing that white people can easily confuse one black person with another black person. That’s totally different than an exorcist claiming to witness an American teenager speaking flawless Aramaic, floating off the bed, or revealing intimate personal knowledge about complete strangers. I don’t care how wacky the brain can be, there is no charitable explanation for the priest being wrong. He’s either lying, he’s nuts, or he’s very gullible.

Going back to my original point…Most people usually give eyewitness testimony the benefit of the doubt. “How was the party?” “Who won the game?” “What did the doctor say?” Society would stop functioning if everyone started demanding proof before believing anyone about anything. Considering the importance that eyewitness testimony plays in our everday lives, it seems extraordinary to say that it’s always wrong when it involves one particular kind of claim.

[lyghtningrod]

There are so many assumptions embedded in your assertions that there's no way to unravel it all.

In essence, you are saying "People see things they can't explain, and I can find no other explanation than supernatural events."

That isn't a very persuasive argument.

 

One of your assumptions is "Most people give eyewitness testimony the benefit of the doubt."

But that is simply not true. I am extremely skeptical of eyewitness accounts. Google 'Gorilla in the midst" to find out just how incredibly unreliable eyewitness testimony is. If you can't see the gorilla in your midst, then maybe just maybe eyewitness accounts are not the accurate accounts of reality you insist they are

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

"I don’t care how wacky the brain can be~"

 

When I read that excerpt, what I extract from it is: "I don't want to know what really happens, I want affirmation that it's superatural".

[STer]

 

I think some of these comparisons are inappropriate.

Your best friend claiming he can fly. Claiming to have witnessed a supernatural event is totally different than claiming to have supernatural abilities.  If your best friend told you he saw someone else fly, would you believe him? That's the question.

People believing the world was flat. Claiming to have seen a ghost is totally different than saying you believe in ghosts. Most peasants in the Dark Ages believed the world was flat, but they never claimed to sail to the ends of the Earth and see it for themselves.  

Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. There are probably studies showing that white people can easily confuse one black person with another black person. That’s totally different than an exorcist claiming to witness an American teenager speaking flawless Aramaic, floating off the bed, or revealing intimate personal knowledge about complete strangers. I don’t care how wacky the brain can be, there is no charitable explanation for the priest being wrong. He’s either lying, he’s nuts, or he’s very gullible.

Going back to my original point…Most people usually give eyewitness testimony the benefit of the doubt. “How was the party?” “Who won the game?” “What did the doctor say?” Society would stop functioning if everyone started demanding proof before believing anyone about anything. Considering the importance that eyewitness testimony plays in our everday lives, it seems extraordinary to say that it’s always wrong when it involves one particular kind of claim.

 

OP if your argument is that, since people make these claims, they deserve rigorous scientific investigation, I concur. It would be wrong of any scientific thinker to dismiss their claims without investigation. But so far investigation has never shown anything "supernatural" to be the case as far as I know (though many have shown such claims to be based on misunderstandings, confusions or even hoaxes). So what more would you like to happen? The only thing someone making a claim is really entitled to is to have it taken seriously enough to be investigated. Until an investigation with a trustworthy methodology shows a supernatural explanation for what they have claimed, all we can say is that we don't know and the burden of proof remains on them.

It's worth noting that any researcher who could with validity and reliability show any of these so-called supernatural events to be real would have made an enormous breakthrough. So there is an incentive to do so if it can truly be shown with strong evidence and repeatability. Yet, still, nobody that I know of has been able to show this.

[fin-tastic]

Supernatural events can't be proven by scientific means. We have many documented cases of terminal illnesses being cured at religious pilgramage sites like Lourdes, France, but it's impossible to prove that it was supernatural rather than some trick of the brain that we don't fully understand.  

Playing Devil's Advocate here:

So even if a cult leader was crucified, died, was buried, rose from the dead, and allowed you to put your fingers into his wounds, you would just attribute it to hallucination or some unknown natural cause?

I have three words for that: Come on, man! Sure, hypothetically, anything is possible considering how much we don’t know about the universe. Scientists have brought dead dogs back to life in the lab. But again: Come on, man! That does not sound like a rational, open-minded person following the evidence to the most likely explanation. That sounds like someone explaining away compelling evidence that challenges his worldview. It’s like a biblical fundamentalist seeing dinosaur bones and saying, “God just put those there to test our faith in the Bible.” Sure, hypothetically, God could do that if he exists. But come on, man!

Atheists say, “I won’t believe anything not proven by science.”

Biblical fundamentalists say, “I won’t belive anything that contradicts the Bible.”

I say, “Come on, man! Worldview be damned. Sometimes seeing is believing.”

 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

We have many documented cases of terminal illnesses being cured at religious pilgramage sites like Lourdes, France, but it's impossible to prove that it was supernatural rather than some trick of the brain that we don't fully understand.  

 

 

No, we have documented cases that some people who were misdiagnosed as terminal have visited religious sites. Has an amputee ever been cured at a religious site? Billions of sick people have visited these sites with no positive results, so if this handful of cases are indeed supernatural, it is far too undependable a thing to obsess over, don't you think?

[fin-tastic]

There have been many cases of alleged miraculous cures that have withstood intense medical scrutiny. Of course, this doesn't prove they were miraculous..only that scientists can find no natural explanation.

You can't keep moving the goalposts like that!

"It's not enough that some sick people are cured; EVERYBODY has to be cured!"

"It's not enough that someone is cured of blindnes or mulitiple sclerosis. I want to see an arm magically reappear on an amutee!" 

Again: Come on, man! You guys gotta meet me half-way here! I'll admit that maybe all claims of miraculous cures have some kind of natural explanation. But you guys gotta admit that a lot these cases make you scratch your head and go  "Hmmmmm..That is extraordinary."

That's all I ask.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

There have been many cases of alleged miraculous cures that have withstood intense medical scrutiny. Of course, this doesn't prove they were miraculous..only that scientists can find no natural explanation.

You can't keep moving the goalposts like that!

"It's not enough that some sick people are cured; EVERYBODY has to be cured!"

"It's not enough that someone is cured of blindnes or mulitiple sclerosis. I want to see an arm magically reappear on an amutee!" 

Again: Come on, man! You guys gotta meet me half-way here! I'll admit that maybe all claims of miraculous cures have some kind of natural explanation. But you guys gotta admit that a lot these cases make you scratch your head and go  "Hmmmmm..That is extraordinary."

That's all I ask.

 

 

I didn't say they aren't extraordinary. I said they aren't magic. And no, everybody doesn't have to be cured. But let me ask you, if aspirin only cured on in a million headaches, how many bottles of aspirin do you think Bayer would sell? All of the claims you report as supernatural possibilites are, in fact, anomolies of the human body. They're all internal and there is a ton of knowledge about the internal workings of the human body that we simply don't yet have. That we don't understand them isn't a reason to credit the supernatural. You can if you like but doing so is an impediment to finding a real answer.

 

And no, I haven't moved the goalposts. I maintain that gods and ghosts do not exist. It is you who keeps adding events and explanations in order to prove your point. If you're certain, then lay out your best case first and save everyone the time of arguing point by point. []

[fin-tastic]

"Since I don't believe in the supernatural, there must be a natural explanation that scientists haven't identified yet."

If that's your attitude, then it's pointless to discuss specific cases.

[nickhk]

So, extraordinary claims shouldn't require extraordinary evidence?

All that time spent verifying Relativity was wasted time then.

 

It's odd that you come in here for discussion with skeptical people, and when they're skeptical, it seems you're kinda surprised by that and think they shouldn't be skeptical.

[fin-tastic]

I admit that many religious believers “obsess” over alleged miracles to find validation for their beliefs. However, I think many atheists do the opposite: They intentionally avoid the subject to remain secure in their atheism.

Sure, skeptics will discuss supernatural phenomena on a broad level, but they rarely delve into specific cases. They’ll offer hypothetical natural explanations for alleged supernatural events, but they won’t investigate whether or not these explanations make sense for individual cases. When I try to have that discussion, they will usually resort to ridicule (“You must believe in unicorns and leprechauns, too!”), change the subject (“Priests molest kids!”), or fall back on, “That doesn’t prove anything.” I imagine the skeptic closing his eyes, plugging his ears, stomping his feet, and saying, “Show me proof! Show me proof! Show me proof!”

A rational person should be willing to examine the evidence for extraordinary claims even it falls short of providing proof on a silver platter. Skeptics seem reluctant to do that. Maybe it takes too much time to sift through all the nonsense in the field of paranormal research, or maybe it springs from intellectual insecurity. Maybe they’re afraid that if they read enough compelling eyewitness testimony of supernatural events, it will become more and more difficult for them to comfortably declare that all these people are lying or mistaken.  

We live in a crazy world where a lot of weird stuff happens. With all our science and technology, many of these events continue to defy scientific explanation. To say that science will *eventually* explain all them strikes me as a leap of faith. I strongly believe that no rational, informed person can proclaim with absolute certainty that the supernatural does or does not exist. There is no escape from the dilemma of uncertainty.

This will be my last post on this discussion, but I am happy to read any final thoughts. It’s been a great discussion and look forward to posting again.

Peace.

And fuck government.

 

[STer]

 

Supernatural events can't be proven by scientific means. We have many documented cases of terminal illnesses being cured at religious pilgramage sites like Lourdes, France, but it's impossible to prove that it was supernatural rather than some trick of the brain that we don't fully understand.  

Playing Devil's Advocate here:

So even if a cult leader was crucified, died, was buried, rose from the dead, and allowed you to put your fingers into his wounds, you would just attribute it to hallucination or some unknown natural cause?

I have three words for that: Come on, man! Sure, hypothetically, anything is possible considering how much we don’t know about the universe. Scientists have brought dead dogs back to life in the lab. But again: Come on, man! That does not sound like a rational, open-minded person following the evidence to the most likely explanation. That sounds like someone explaining away compelling evidence that challenges his worldview. It’s like a biblical fundamentalist seeing dinosaur bones and saying, “God just put those there to test our faith in the Bible.” Sure, hypothetically, God could do that if he exists. But come on, man!

Atheists say, “I won’t believe anything not proven by science.”

Biblical fundamentalists say, “I won’t belive anything that contradicts the Bible.”

I say, “Come on, man! Worldview be damned. Sometimes seeing is believing.”

 

 

How can seeing be believing when we have reams of examples of optical illusions where our vision completely lies to us?

When you see something it means you perceived it. It doesn't tell you what you perceived exactly or why. Heck, everything you see everyday misleads you to the very foundation. What looks to you like solid matter is actually mostly space. You'd never know the reality based on your raw perception alone.

This goes right down to epistemology. If you think that you can know deeply about things just by seeing them - and we're not even talking about really getting to explore them, but sometimes just a quick flash of seeing something for a few seconds - then you have a different epistemology than I do. And if we went by your epistemology we would have a lot more mistaken beliefs about the world than we do.

[STer]

 

There have been many cases of alleged miraculous cures that have withstood intense medical scrutiny. Of course, this doesn't prove they were miraculous..only that scientists can find no natural explanation.

You can't keep moving the goalposts like that!

"It's not enough that some sick people are cured; EVERYBODY has to be cured!"

"It's not enough that someone is cured of blindnes or mulitiple sclerosis. I want to see an arm magically reappear on an amutee!" 

Again: Come on, man! You guys gotta meet me half-way here! I'll admit that maybe all claims of miraculous cures have some kind of natural explanation. But you guys gotta admit that a lot these cases make you scratch your head and go  "Hmmmmm..That is extraordinary."

That's all I ask.

 

You're attempting to turn correlation into causation. Even if the facts of the case are accurate - someone was ill, went to one of these places, then suddenly was better - that doesn't tell us what the mechanism was. It's quite possible, even likely, that if thousands of people go to that site, a handful will by chance go just as they were about to go into remission for some other reason. That's just one of many possible alternative explanations of what took place. To claim that there is any substance to saying they were cured miraculously just because they got better in correlation with a trip somewhere is very misguided.

Correlation does provide a reason to do further investigation to find the mechanism. If we can't find the mechanism, then we must remain agnostics who admit we still have no reliable evidence for the supernatural.

[STer]

 

I admit that many religious believers “obsess” over alleged miracles to find validation for their beliefs. However, I think many atheists do the opposite: They intentionally avoid the subject to remain secure in their atheism.

Sure, skeptics will discuss supernatural phenomena on a broad level, but they rarely delve into specific cases. They’ll offer hypothetical natural explanations for alleged supernatural events, but they won’t investigate whether or not these explanations make sense for individual cases. When I try to have that discussion, they will usually resort to ridicule (“You must believe in unicorns and leprechauns, too!”), change the subject (“Priests molest kids!”), or fall back on, “That doesn’t prove anything.” I imagine the skeptic closing his eyes, plugging his ears, stomping his feet, and saying, “Show me proof! Show me proof! Show me proof!”

A rational person should be willing to examine the evidence for extraordinary claims even it falls short of providing proof on a silver platter. Skeptics seem reluctant to do that. Maybe it takes too much time to sift through all the nonsense in the field of paranormal research, or maybe it springs from intellectual insecurity. Maybe they’re afraid that if they read enough compelling eyewitness testimony of supernatural events, it will become more and more difficult for them to comfortably declare that all these people are lying or mistaken.  

We live in a crazy world where a lot of weird stuff happens. With all our science and technology, many of these events continue to defy scientific explanation. To say that science will *eventually* explain all them strikes me as a leap of faith. I strongly believe that no rational, informed person can proclaim with absolute certainty that the supernatural does or does not exist. There is no escape from the dilemma of uncertainty.

This will be my last post on this discussion, but I am happy to read any final thoughts. It’s been a great discussion and look forward to posting again.

Peace.

And fuck government.

 

 

You must not be replying to me. I've said over and over that we should indeed investigate these cases to see if we can find a mechanism. If we can't find a mechanism, all we can say is some people report a correlation between some things, we have no idea if the correlation is real or if so what it even indicates and our default position must remain agnostic on the subject of the supernatural. I don't know what more you think is merited.

You said:

"A
rational person should be willing to examine the evidence for
extraordinary claims even it falls short of providing proof on a silver
platter."

I agree. The question is what you mean by "examine." To me, it's only a significant enough examination to change our viewpoint if we can solidify what the mechanism of the event was and that it was one that cannot fit into a natural explanation of the world - and do so in an unbiased manner. If we examine it only enough to say something interesting happened, we haven't really gained enough understanding to base any new worldview on it.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

With all due respect, I've resorted to none of the tactics I've been accused of and to boot, I haven't put words in your mouth. It is you who did that. To wit:

"It's not enough that some sick people are cured; EVERYBODY has to be cured!"

 

Really? I didn't say anything of the sort. Should I not read that as ridicule, sarcasm or at least a bit snarky? We can continue this discussion or you can bow out, either is fine with me. However, for future reference, please understand that I will never ridicule you or level personal attacks. I will be blunt, direct and honest with my positions but I'll not attack you or anyone else. And if I do come off as rude or if I am proven wrong, I will apologize and/or acknowledge my mistake accordingly.

[fin-tastic]

I apologize. No snark intended. I got defensive after being accused of "obsessing" over alleged miracles. That puts me in some unpleasant company. In fact, I take back my entire final post. I have no idea how much you guys have studied alleged supernatural phenomena. For all I know, maybe you've spent years researching and debunking specific cases. I was describing my overall impression of skeptics on this subject, which is irrelevant. 

 

 

[fin-tastic]

 Also, I wasn't trying to make you change your worldview. I was trying to make you doubt your worldview. It seems I failed miserably.