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?
