What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Nothing is "unexplainable,' but certainly our observational and linguistic ability to communicate is a limitation on what can be currently explained.

I think the largest contributor to supernatual beliefs, is the idea of deterministic narratives. Things like "fate" or "destiny," are reliant on the plan or intervention of an unseen being (or beings). These narratives are popular because they appeal to human vanity, so retiring these beliefs can be difficult internal struggle mentally and emotionally. Given the option between a universe that revolves around you (and your species), verses a universe of nature with no administrative beings, it seems obvious to me why people believe, even though it's totally misguided. The former appeals to people's ego, and that is a very difficult opponent of reason.

So I assume that those who have retired belief have overcome a difficult mental and emotional struggle and are thus to be admired.

I think most Christian beliefs are retired because of the limitations they impose upon sexual conduct. All the other justifications, which are sold on the open market, are added later. The original reason being then repressed.

If we were to encounter a race of beings whose perception of reality was far greater than ours and whose technology, as Clarke suggested, was indistinguishable from what we could consider magic, we would likely consider them supernatural. If humanity is able to achieve such a level of development, we would likely be considered supernatural to less perceptive races we meet along the way.

Quote:

Nothing is "unexplainable,' but certainly our observational and linguistic ability to communicate is a limitation on what can be currently explained.

Really! You know for a fact that nothing is unexplainable…or is this just a guess you are making?

Quote:

I think the largest contributor to supernatual beliefs, is the idea of deterministic narratives. Things like "fate" or "destiny," are reliant on the plan or intervention of an unseen being (or beings). These narratives are popular because they appeal to human vanity, so retiring these beliefs can be difficult internal struggle mentally and emotionally. Given the option between a universe that revolves around you (and your species), verses a universe of nature with no administrative beings, it seems obvious to me why people believe, even though it's totally misguided. The former appeals to people's ego, and that is a very difficult opponent of reason.

Art, I am an agnostic. I have no idea if there are things or beings or whatever that would, to any reasonable human, be considered “supernatural.”

You seem to be quite sure there are no such things…which should mean that you are quite sure what the Ultimate REALITY is. You apparently know what can be ruled out.

Are you as sure of that as you made it appear in this comment…or were you just blowing smoke?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If we were to encounter a race of beings whose perception of reality was far greater than ours and whose technology, as Clarke suggested, was indistinguishable from what we could consider magic, we would likely consider them supernatural. If humanity is able to achieve such a level of development, we would likely be considered supernatural to less perceptive races we meet along the way.

I doubt that very much, Fin. The notion, for example, that pre-industrial people considered the first European white men they met to be gods is strictly a white man's wishful thinking. There is no evidence for this whatever. We are, no doubt, the most self-centered and arrogant creatures alive. I doubt very much that I would ever consider a visitor from another planet to be a god. I don't know, of course, what your reaction would be.

You are assuming that the "visitor" will bother to communicate with you, let alone share with you his/her/it's origins.

I don't think admiration is needed, no. It is difficult though. Social pressure to believe seems to be for the comfort of others.

The question is in regards to beliefs in the supernatural, not simply christian mythology.

At the base, all of these beliefs offer the believer the same inflated sense of importance and significance to the universe.

Yes really.

The only way such a concept can exist is through language. In other words, just because no known explanation for a phenomena exists, we cannot say it is "unexplainable." We can only state what our limitations are in explaining it. This is easily remedied, by qualifying things lacking an explanation. Saying something is "unexplainable" seems to me to convey that there are things that can never be explained. I think that is an assumption. My position only says that observational and language ability limit what is explained currently, not what can be explained, thus nothing has a quality of being unexplainable.

The only thing wrong with a belief in the supernatural is the use of the word 'supernatural.' It somehow implies hat there is something 'unnatural' about conditions which we, with our limited understanding, cannot explain. In the final analysis, there are no 'miracles,' nothing is 'supernatural.' There is, however, a large body of unexplained (and perhaps unexplainable) phenomena.

Well there are thousands of belief systems and as A2K is operating in a Christian world I take it that the thread title refers to Christian attitudes to the supernatural. We are not, I assume, concerned with Tiamet farting the universe out of her arsehole.

It sound to me as though you are arbitrarily defining everything that exists as being “explainable”…in other words, “not supernatural”…as an argument from authority.

Is there no possibility that you are wrong? (Asked another way, “Have you ever been wrong on anything before?”)

You are supposing your major premise.