In addition to this discussion, we also touched on the idea of the supernatural, or more specifically, if the Mormon community is "right" to celebrate the prophetic nature of certain leaders' dreams that predicted the Chilean earthquake. I think that most of us in the room felt like we understood why the community is so pleased - it validates and reinforces their own beliefs - but we weren't sure if we could go so far as to call the dreams "prophetic" when history, probability, and science could help predict the earthquake.
In a follow-up discussion, a couple of us began to ponder the supernatural. We wondered if something could be labeled as "supernatural" in one century (because it couldn't be described with natural laws known at that time) and labeled as "natural" in the next century once it could be described. I think we both agreed this to be true.
Based on this agreement in logic, then, I want to pose a scenario:
A person in 2010 America is described as having "psychic" abilities - she claims to be able to tap into some kind of larger thing (like the universe, like the earth, like other people's minds or souls). She makes predictions about the world, she can read your future, and she can accurately describe scenes of places where she has never been. Her "gifts" are considered "supernatural" and, as such, are generally dismissed by the educated, skeptical crowds. She is called crazy, and her correct predictions are chalked up as coincidences or hoaxes.
In 2011, she takes part in a scientific experiment where doctors measure her brain waves and find evidence that she can, in fact, see things on that higher plane and tap into something that other people can't see. There are charts and numbers to explain her gift, so it is no longer considered "supernatural."
The end result: her gifts and her claims and her actions do not change into 2011, but the way they are preceived and the number of people who acknowldege her gift change dramatically. Even the skeptics become okay with the idea that she can read their thoughts, etc.
With that said, could we agree, then, that what we call "psychic" and "supernatural" today should not necessarily be dismissed out of hand? Could it be true that people can do the things they claim, but we just don't have the knowledge/evidence yet to explain why or how they can do them?
I am not arguing here for acceptance without critical thinking. I am not advocating gullibility or choosing the supernatural (necessarily) over science. I am just taken by the reluctance that people seem to have of the supernatural, the things we cannot explain with natural laws. It seems like we need to be open to the idea that there are more things going on in the universe than we can currently fathom and that our minds are capable of things that we cannot yet describe. Thoughts?
And another comment: How can so many people believe in God - a supernatural being - but then be so quick to call shenanigans on prophets, psychics, spirits, and other forms of the supernatural?
ReplyDeleteScenario:
ReplyDeleteA newspaper article tells of large boulders that have been supposedly moved hundreds of miles overnight in South Africa. A man says that he saw a team of flying ghost elephants carrying the boulders using ropes made of invisible energy ropes over his house the previous night.
There have been no scientific discoveries of a flying elephant species, or their ghosts. Technically speaking, just because none have been discovered doesn't mean with absolute certainty that they don't exist. (There are a lot of plant and animal species that haven't been discovered yet...scientist agree on this across the board.)
So why wouldn't people support this man's claim with reasons like "Well, there is an itty-bitty-bitty-bitty-bitty-bitty chance that there are flying elephants that we just haven't discovered yet, so I think we should take his claim seriously."?
I think what we see is that many people WANT to believe in the supernatural, and these people are less likely to dismiss claims of flying ghosts elephant or psychics or prophetic warnings or God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like the question about why we resist calling something supernatural. It's a dangerous label because it implies there will never be an explanation that makes it normal or natural. For me, I see a spectrum. On one side is the fallacy From Ignorance (Because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false) which could argue: "Since you can't prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist." On the other side of the spectrum is Arthur C Clark's quote: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." So, I can't prove that flying elephants don't exist, but if they did they might as well be MAGIC flying elephants.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments, fellas, though I guess I didn't know that the word "supernatural" implies something that can never have an explanation. My understanding of something supernatural is that it cannot yet (and may never) be described by "natural law."
ReplyDeleteAs for the elephant thing, I think I see what you are getting at - that there is a really small chance of that ever happening, so even if a person were to admit that there is a possibility of the supernatural, it does not mean that another person is justified in believing in the supernatural; people believe in the supernatural because they want to.
There are many things in science that can't be explained by natural laws right now but are by no means considered "super-natural." The point of science is to figure these things out.
ReplyDeleteThe mind, for example, and many of its vast mental disorders and mutations are still, generally speaking, a major mystery to us.
Maybe a major distinction between supernatural and "natural" is whether or not we have evidence of something, whether we can explain it or not. We have evidence of many medical mysteries, but just can't explain them yet.
But things like magic flying elephants and people with mental powers (like psychics or the woman in your scenario, or even God) don't actually have any evidence aside from one person who "witnessed" the flying elephants or person who claims they can predict the future with absolute accuracy...or even a million people who claim to "believe" something with no evidence to be true. We'd call these things supernatural.
I feel a bit over my head with this subject, but it's interesting and you know I'll throw in my two cents. :)