tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post512106811899650807..comments2023-05-10T08:55:47.701-07:00Comments on Richard Carrier Blogs: Defining the SupernaturalRichard Carrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-18007607001924742552011-11-28T12:48:21.559-08:002011-11-28T12:48:21.559-08:00Science Guy said… I still believe that the concept...<b>Science Guy said…</b> <i>I still believe that the concept of the "supernatural" makes little sense, and especially so coming from someone who denies its existence, but if you want to continue to assert that it makes sense, go ahead.</i><br /><br />If cartoons make sense to you, then the supernatural does. Because cartoons embody the fundamental definition of supernatural causation (Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-6061648660047377962011-10-09T16:48:34.344-07:002011-10-09T16:48:34.344-07:00"So if you are worried about induction, you s..."So if you are worried about induction, you should be worried about all scientific and mathematical knowledge whatever."<br /><br />As I already pointed out in my own post.<br /><br />You and I disagree on the significance of the problem of induction (which is not a term that I made up, despite your insistence that it's no problem at all). But, that's fine. I just thought I Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-69106091942651235542011-10-07T14:22:29.976-07:002011-10-07T14:22:29.976-07:00Science Guy said... I would maintain that there ar...<b>Science Guy said...</b> <i>I would maintain that there are no good philosophical grounds for dividing reality into "natural" and a so-called (but untestable, unobservable, unproveable) "supernatural" realm.</i><br /><br />Since I argue <i>against</i> that dichotomy, and not for it, I assume that's the bit you say you got wrong. My whole post's point is that "Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-35433490587382359192011-09-29T10:22:52.686-07:002011-09-29T10:22:52.686-07:00By the way, Richard, I have to apologize: I just r...By the way, Richard, I have to apologize: I just realized that I slightly misinterpreted the part of your article that I quoted in my last comment.<br /><br />Nonetheless, I still think that your entire argument does hinge upon induction, and I still think that induction is philosophically problematic, so I would still like to hear a response to the point I raised. Thanks. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-21374758604544146362011-09-29T10:16:52.837-07:002011-09-29T10:16:52.837-07:00Richard Carrier said:
"Therefore, when I say...Richard Carrier said:<br /><br />"Therefore, when I say naturalism rules out supernatural explanations of what happened in Jerusalem two thousand years ago, I am obviously not including mechanical pseudo-gods. Such entities would fall closer to the "aliens did it" category of explanations, which naturalism does not address, nor does it need to. Good old fashioned inductive logic Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-34103062977596260722009-03-24T15:03:00.000-07:002009-03-24T15:03:00.000-07:00Thank you! This was honestly not clear to me.Thank you! This was honestly not clear to me.Haukurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669738332175762658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-64276919187897016362009-03-24T12:24:00.000-07:002009-03-24T12:24:00.000-07:00The Tao is immaterial. Theostoa has a body. And th...The Tao is immaterial. Theostoa has a body. And the Tao has mental properties (albeit not an intelligence like God, thus differing from Theostoa in that respect, but being more like an emotional intelligence, though still combined with a will and an ability to enforce its will on the physical universe), but it has and exercises them without any physical mechanism. Theostoa has a fully complex Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-31680016612700105202009-03-18T09:17:00.000-07:002009-03-18T09:17:00.000-07:00RC on Theostoa: "no one on earth believes in a God...RC on Theostoa: "no one on earth believes in a God like this"<BR/><BR/>I'm curious - what aspect of this Theostoa theory would you have disagreed with as a Taoist?Haukurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669738332175762658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-38946108773756291042008-02-20T19:11:00.000-08:002008-02-20T19:11:00.000-08:00I was asked elsewhere about the validity of certai...I was asked elsewhere about the validity of certain versions of the Atheistic Cosmological Argument (ACA), in response to Loftus defending the Everitt version of same (and my defense of a different version in my book and elsewhere). I mention something like this near the end of my original blog entry here (which partly answers the question of what Christian Theism predicts vis-a-vis the contents Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-31265949874868991652007-11-15T13:48:00.000-08:002007-11-15T13:48:00.000-08:00Brief note in reference to my exchange with Hinman...<B>Brief note in reference to my exchange with Hinman above:</B><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html#c6576695357244403435" REL="nofollow">J.L. Hinman</A> asked me to read an old article by Fairweather and <A HREF="http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html#c1245905108989687799" REL="nofollow">I said I would</A> and Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-6582823740946060742007-10-05T12:22:00.000-07:002007-10-05T12:22:00.000-07:00Update: Doctor Yonatan Fishman has published (or s...<B>Update:</B> Doctor <B>Yonatan Fishman</B> has published (or soon will) an article in <I>Science & Education</I> arguing the very same thesis (and for much the same reasons) as my blog entry.<BR/><BR/>Whereas I took a colloquial, teach-by-example approach, Fishman takes a formal Bayesian approach, and actually surveys many naturalists who agree with or support our position (especially against Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-62069391319290977292007-03-09T16:57:00.000-08:002007-03-09T16:57:00.000-08:00Richard,Many thanks for your response, pointing ou...Richard,<BR/><BR/>Many thanks for your response, pointing out some areas of thought to look into. I will read up on these, as soon as I have some spare time.<BR/><BR/>Warm regards,<BR/><BR/>JohnJohn Brydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08768413267360467924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-31043505032130244752007-03-09T14:08:00.000-08:002007-03-09T14:08:00.000-08:00DFB: Okay, Richard, there's the topic of your next...<B>DFB:</B> <I>Okay, Richard, there's the topic of your next essay: are platonists' extra- meta- supra- natural concepts like numbers a supernatural phenomenon as you've described here? Or are they just ideas resulting from the emergent property of "mind?" My money is on the latter.</I><BR/><BR/>If I could ever get a straight answer from a Platonist I'd tell you. <BR/><BR/>But I've tried. I've Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-7060798395439456092007-03-09T14:02:00.000-08:002007-03-09T14:02:00.000-08:00John Bryden: [I]f the whole of material reality is...<B>John Bryden:</B> <I>[I]f the whole of material reality is a reflection of a greater, "supernatural" reality, then all natural activity is in the picture, and the questions you are seeking to deal with might take on a different character.</I><BR/><BR/>There is no generic response I can offer, since <I>how</I> one formulates such a system can vary considerably, so I can only respond to specific Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-41523843837266979922007-02-15T22:25:00.000-08:002007-02-15T22:25:00.000-08:00DFB, My apologies to you (and Richard), for that m...DFB, My apologies to you (and Richard), for that mistake over identity. Duh. There go any hopes I had of projecting mental alertness.<BR/><BR/>It would indeed be interesting to hear any further thoughts on Platonism in the present context. It's an area of thought I'd like to study at some stage, but as yet I've not had the time. The Stanford web page that I gave a link to previously, seems to John Brydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08768413267360467924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-53728678890110712532007-02-15T13:06:00.000-08:002007-02-15T13:06:00.000-08:00Those observations weren't Richard's (he wouldn't ...Those observations weren't Richard's (he wouldn't have been so snarky) but you're welcome.<BR/><BR/>J.B.: "Since the concept of the supernatural that I alluded to is untestable,.."<BR/><BR/>But one of the points of this blog entry is to dissuade you (and me) of that notion. The "supernatural" need not be "untestable."<BR/><BR/>J.B.: "..could it be that this is the same general concept that DFBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16624603521338516156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-56280856740204640082007-02-15T00:09:00.000-08:002007-02-15T00:09:00.000-08:00Richard,Thanks for those observations. Since the c...Richard,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for those observations. Since the concept of the supernatural that I alluded to is untestable, could it be that this is the same general concept that scientists are working with when they define the supernatural as that which is untestable. I'm thinking of this in the context of <A HREF="http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/platonism/" REL="nofollow">John Brydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08768413267360467924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-19942301003044724032007-02-14T08:49:00.000-08:002007-02-14T08:49:00.000-08:00J.B.: "...the whole of material reality is a refle...J.B.: "...the whole of material reality is a reflection of a greater, 'supernatural' reality..."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I've long thought that I was really just a brain in a jar, part of some sort of alien experiment or something, and that the reality I experience is just a reflection of the electrical impulses being fed into me. The problem with my theory is that it is unknowable, so much so that one ofDFBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16624603521338516156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-62033256602259484232007-02-14T00:31:00.000-08:002007-02-14T00:31:00.000-08:00I'm interested to know your thoughts on an idea of...I'm interested to know your thoughts on an idea of the supernatural holding that all of phenomenal reality (aka nature) is a reflection of a spiritual realm. The discussion in your initial article seemed to be addressing (and debunking) the possibility that various specific events could be attributed to supernatural causes. But if the whole of material reality is a reflection of a greater, "John Brydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08768413267360467924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-89137035128438301412007-02-12T17:04:00.000-08:002007-02-12T17:04:00.000-08:00DFB: Here's three scientists...all of whom seem to...<B>DFB:</B> <I>Here's three scientists...all of whom seem to equate untestability with unscientific and I wondered if that is in conflict with your definition of the supernatural...If you're going to explain away the results, then there's no point and no hypothesis can be adequately falsified.</I><BR/><BR/>This corresponds to what I said about the invalidity of arbitrary excuses (i.e. repeated Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-4833741160310539832007-02-02T15:18:00.000-08:002007-02-02T15:18:00.000-08:00Okay, just one more clarification. I know I starte...Okay, just one more clarification. I know I started this by accusing you of overthinking things; now it seems that you've got me doing just that. <br /><br />I was reading this paper today http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/174/3/1073 because it sounded like a fun activity for my 11-year old and his friends this weekend. In the paper, the writers describe a biology lab project for DFBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16624603521338516156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-14731394823184386262007-02-01T16:08:00.000-08:002007-02-01T16:08:00.000-08:00"I could certainly build a machine, a la Forbidden...<a blockquote>"I could certainly build a machine, a la <i>Forbidden Planet</i>, that would make Tarot cards completely successful, but not a bit supernatural."</a><br /><br />And you could build a machine a la <i>Zardoz</i>, that would make you immortal, but not be a bit supernatural, proving Aristotle both right and wrong. :-p<br /><br />Richard, sorry I missed you last night on IR, but I got The Science Pundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14497373296651049624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-32403663162263676972007-02-01T15:00:00.000-08:002007-02-01T15:00:00.000-08:00DFB: I keep thinking of a friend of mine who reads...<B>DFB:</B> <I>I keep thinking of a friend of mine who reads tarot cards at my neighborhood bar on Thursday evenings. I have been giving her grief for years, accusing her of ripping people off, etc...</I><br /><br />Susan Blackmore used to be a honest and convinced Tarot reader, until she applied scientific methods to her own practice and realized where she was misleading herself. There is a goodRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-90971371145306411512007-02-01T12:12:00.000-08:002007-02-01T12:12:00.000-08:00Okay, when I said "What you're saying is that its ...Okay, when I said "What you're saying is that its still a test and it still provides evidence that can be included in a larger body of evidence that can be used to determine reality" I think I was a little bit wrong. What you're really saying is that the fact that a test can be done makes it "testable" regardless of whether the results are useful or enlightening. What she's doing at the bar is "DFBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16624603521338516156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-36691905596064597542007-02-01T07:56:00.000-08:002007-02-01T07:56:00.000-08:00R.C.: The ivory castle doesn't read well unless it...R.C.: The ivory castle doesn't read well unless it reads a lot.<br /><br />Funny.<br /><br />R.C.: It sounds like you are confusing testability with truth<br /><br />That's exactly where the brick wall was. I see what you're getting at, but I keep thinking of a friend of mine who reads tarot cards at my neighborhood bar on Thursday evenings. I have been giving her grief for years, accusing her ofDFBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16624603521338516156noreply@blogger.com