What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Curious choice of words, Frank.

Ah, but not that magic fairy who lives in the evergreens in the back yard . . . if i ever get my hands on that goofy little bitch, i'm gonna make her give up her gold . . . we'll be rich, rich i tell ya ! ! ! All of us ! ! !

But I know I am among friends who will realize the irony I intended and probably consider a qualifier a poke at their intelligence, so I left the qualifier off.

I never knew you did irony before. It's rare in golfers.

Humans are limited to a perception of reality they have taken to call "natural."

It's a very useful term but unless one believes humans have a complete perception of reality, the "natural" is perforce limited.

"Supernatural" and "Unnatural" are not two versions of the same concept.

Supernatural, very simply, means that which is beyond our perception.

Again, unless one believes nothing is beyond our perception there must be that which is supernatural.

It's quite possible that the destiny of humanity is to render all of reality natural in the sense that it will some day in the far future be able to perceive the totality of existence.

If this is the case, then at some point along the way we will almost certainly become supernatural to other sentient beings following a similar path of discovery.

A typical difficulty with any discussion of the supernatural is the unfortunate tendency for so many to link the term with superstition, as has the originator of this thread.

This leads to superficial and usually supercilious arguments about believing in imaginary supermen.

If someone wishes to assume that they (or those with greater minds than theirs whom they choose to rely upon for their beliefs) have full perception of reality who can stop them?

Likewise, who can stop someone from framing the supernatural in natural terms?

Why bother?

There is, I believe, a severly mistaken notion that ridding mankind of any contemplation of the supernatural will somehow lead to an elimination of the worst excesses of organized religion.

Those excesses can attach as easily to a entirely natural based philosophy as any that claims to be based on the supernatural, and for people who crave power either will provide them with an effective vehicle.

The blind followers who they dupe are seldom so blind that they are incapable of distinquishing between right and wrong and therefore entitled to an exemption from personal moral accountability, and even if this were not the case, there is not that much difference between promises of a paradise in heaven or one on earth.

It doesn't much matter to the fantatical whether they are bound to follow, without question, the Word of God or The Great Leader.

As for miracles, as Arthur C Clarke famously wrote:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I assume you mean "curious choice of a word, Cyracuz." There was, after all, only one.

Anyway, I did realize the irony, which is why I made the statement. I thought it funny, and I also thought that was your intention.

But if everything can simply be explained away as you say, then why do people persist in their belief's even when they are presented which such information?

Dear all,

I’m quoted in the article posted here as being rather abusive to people who are worried about the LHC – I’d like to clarify!

I certainly don’t think that people who are worried about new scientific endeavors are “tw*ts” ! Skepticism is a valuable and vital part of our society, and one which is perhaps sadly lacking in public debate. For the record, the concerns about LHC are certainly wrong from a scientific perspective – nature is rather more robust than we give her credit for, and nothing we can do at the low energies we can manage at LHC or anywhere else in the foreseeable future will affect us in any way. But – I would always encourage a rational debate about future advances in science, and in that sense I support the goals of this forum.

What I would say is that it is not sensible to hold an opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whilst I understand that much of the language of particle physics is opaque, there does come a time when it is worth accepting the views of experts. The analogy I would give is the design of aircraft wings – I am happy to trust an expert in aerodynamics to get it right rather than offer my own opinion about what shape they should be. It’s really the case that the particle physics community are sensible, rational human beings who go about their research because they believe that exploring the subatomic world is good for our civilization, not to mention interesting. It is also true that if anyone, including myself, had any doubt about the safety of what we are doing, we would stop immediately. I and all my colleagues consider our personal safety and the safety of our families to be FAR more important than the search for the Higgs particle – indeed, if the risk were even as high as 1 in a billion, or whatever people quote, then I would be campaigning with you to stop it.

But honestly – the case advanced against the LHC is based on the rather loud pronouncements of a couple of people who really do not have the knowledge to make them. This “jtankers” chap who posts all over the place began one statement claiming that we collide particles together at twice the speed of light, and Otto Rossler, whilst clearly a distinguished biochemist, has based his argument on a pretty basic error in General Relativity. Now I am not criticizing these gentlemen for offering an opinion, but wisdom comes from noticing when ones opinion is disproved by evidence. This is the key to science.

So, in summary – I support this forum as a place where skeptical voices can be raised, but skepticism must go hand in hand with rationality. When theories are shown to be false, the correct thing to do is to move on.

Yours,

Brian Cox