Skip Navigation
Atheism @lemmy.world
aLaStOr_MoOdY47 @lemmy.world

Besides your belief that there is no higher power, what are your thoughts on supernatural phenomena?

Lets take a little break from politics and have us a real atheist conversation.

Personally, I'm open to the idea of the existence of supernatural phenomena, and I believe mainstream religions are actually complicated incomplete stories full of misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and half-truths.

Basically, I think that these stories are not as simple and straightforward as they seem to be to religious people. I feel like there is a lot more to them. Concluding that all these stories are just made up or came out of nowhere is kind of hard for me.

279 comments

  • “Fifty thousand years ago there were these three guys spread out across the plain and they each heard something rustling in the grass. The first one thought it was a tiger, and he ran like hell, and it was a tiger but the guy got away. The second one thought the rustling was a tiger and he ran like hell, but it was only the wind and his friends all laughed at him for being such a chickenshit. But the third guy thought it was only the wind, so he shrugged it off and the tiger had him for dinner. And the same thing happened a million times across ten thousand generations - and after a while everyone was seeing tigers in the grass even when there were`t any tigers, because even chickenshits have more kids than corpses do. And from those humble beginnings we learn to see faces in the clouds and portents in the stars, to see agency in randomness, because natural selection favours the paranoid. Even here in the 21st century we can make people more honest just by scribbling a pair of eyes on the wall with a Sharpie. Even now we are wired to believe that unseen things are watching us.”

    ― Peter Watts, Echopraxia

  • “Supernatural” is just unexplained, or misunderstood, natural phenomena.

    I’ve spent years working in supposedly haunted buildings (as security.)

    the guy who loves sharing his ghost story really didn’t appreciate being told that the “fleeting man” he saw apparitions of, were his own reflection (specifically in a corner window of a conference room, or in certain circumstances, in double-paned windows.)

    Nor did he appreciate being told the ghost “walking” down the stairwell was really just the fire sprinkler standpipe clunking against the stairs as the building cooled off. (And the reason it happened around the same time every night was the building’s hvac being set to a lower temp to save energy.)

    He most certainly didn’t enjoy being told that the doors closing in his face were caused by shorts in the magnetic door holders and that he really should have put that in his report (he was written up for not reporting a maintenance issue.)

    He also got written up when we found out that he was leaving windows cracked in the space above him, but he wrote them off as ghosts screaming instead of the wind whistling through a slightly cracked window.

    Our understanding of the universe is imperfect- and it probably always will be. The point of science is to improve that understanding using evidence and experimentation.

    I’ll take science any day of the week.

  • Our Brains are a meat pudding that runs on less electricity than a light bulb. I don't think it's unreasonable to get some hallucinations and signal interference. Especially when the pudding is stressed or poisoned . Plus we straight up know there are senses and ranges of senses we do not perceive. Reality is another thing all together through the eyes of a mantis shrimp. Our perception is incredibly biased and limited, so miracles (magic) are an easy explanation when our senses fail us.

    • Some say that our brains are actually filters. What we perceive is just what your brain lets us perceive, and that there's more to the universe than we could ever comprehend.

  • Asking if the supernatural exists is not a scientific question whose answer can be derived empirically. Which to me means the question isn't even worth asking until a bunch of other questions can be asked / answered enough that this question becomes a scientific one, belief really has nothing to do with it (not sure I'm even capable of belief like that).

    Concluding that all these stories are made up IS the simplest and most logical explanation. But, they almost certainly do not come from nothing. We as a species are kinda hardwired to understand things, and when we encounter something we don't, we have a tendency to either make shit up or seek things that satisfy that understanding (even if its not really understanding). The result is that we have all these fantastic stories and myths that are only distantly related to reality.

    • So basically, you're saying that if it's not science, it's not worth the time?

      • I'm saying that it's not worth asking this question yet. There are a bunch of other foundational questions that need to be asked and answered first (there is a never-ending loop of ask/ answer, btw, it can be quite infuriating), before this supernatural question can be asked scientifically.

        I'm saying let's focus on finding and asking these more basic questions first, then we can take the little baby, scientifically sound steps towards asking what the answer to life, the universe, and everything is. Ironically, if there is any purpose in life, it's finding our own special way to take these little baby steps for humanity.

  • Sorry but I'm going to call out what I see as some pretty blatant motte-and-bailey argumentation by the OP and their offense taken to people trying to nail down the definition of supernatural is illustrative.

    They have their bailey, belief in things like the occult, ghosts, demons, etc, that are almost certainly bullshit. To the extent that they can be falsified, they have been. This is the typical definition of what people think when you say "supernatural" and people are right to answer "no" when asked if they believe in it.

    But then you have OP falling back on their motte when this happens, taking a nebulous definition of supernatural and asking rhetorical philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown. The fallacy is that these questions do nothing to strengthen or refute the original argument about the supernatural.

    Nobody is here to argue that nothing is unknown and even unknowable but that doesn't make the things that people typically call "supernatural" any less bullshit. Demons and ghosts are just not the kinds of things that are waiting around to surprise us. And shifting the conversation from your bailey to your motte to protect your feelings on the former is not a good way to have a friendly debate.

    All that aside, if you are interested in expanding your understanding of the universe then I'd really encourage you to divert the effort you're putting into the "supernatural" into learning about the actual natural universe instead. Our universe really is fantastic on its own. There's plenty of interesting, wacky, and unknown things happening all around us that you can learn about without resorting to magic. If anything, magic is the boring answer imo.

    • They have their bailey, belief in things like the occult, ghosts, demons, etc, that are almost certainly bullshit. To the extent that they can be falsified, they have been. This is the typical definition of what people think when you say “supernatural” and people are right to answer “no” when asked if they believe in it.

      You say that people are right to answer "no" when asked if they believe in this stuff. That is just not true at all. That's because that as much as good evidence can be hard to come by for supernatural stuff, there is also no official evidence whatsoever that proves that such things do not exist. Therefore, the most accurate answer should really be "I don't know", because of the subject's unfalsifiable nature, and how it's outside scientific testing. You still have a right to say "yes", or "no" though.

      But then you have OP falling back on their motte when this happens, taking a nebulous definition of supernatural and asking philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown. The fallacy is that these questions do nothing to strengthen or refute the original argument about the supernatural.

      That "nebulous" definition of supernatural that I keep using IS the literal definition of the word. You even described it yourself how I described it on your second paragraph, first line. Yes, I have been "asking philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown". And why can't I do that? My post is an open-ended question. This means that the conversation can go anywhere, provided that the context continues to match the topic of the post. What do you mean by "original argument about the supernatural"? Again, this post is meant to be an open-ended question where others contribute their thoughts on the supernatural, I share my opinions on their thoughts, and we agree, or disagree. There is no "original argument about the supernatural".

      Nobody is here to argue that nothing is unknown and even unknowable but that doesn’t make the things that people typically call “supernatural” any less bullshit. Demons and ghosts are just not the kinds of things that are waiting around to surprise us. And shifting the conversation from your bailey to your motte to protect your feelings on the former is not a good way to have a friendly debate.

      Actually, people here have argued such, as supernatural phenomena is a mysterious topic. Nowhere have I declared that there are no BS claims in the supernatural world. However, saying that all supernatural claims are complete BS without evidence supporting it is a biased take. Some are debunked, and some aren't, which is how we end up with unexplained claims that are beyond rational explanation. A scenario like this is the reason why we should stay open-minded about supernatural phenomena, instead of completely denouncing it.

  • If something has observable properties, then it is part of nature, as we could observe it, model it, and include it into our scientific theories. If something has no observable properties, then it is not distinguishable from something that does not exist. Supernatural phenomena thus, tautologically, are not distinguishable from something that does not exist. Indeed, I would go as far as even saying the definition of nonexistence is to lack observable properties. That is why i se supernatural phenomena as a no-go. It either lacks observable properties, so it does not exist as a matter of definition, or it has observable properties, meaning it is just natural and not supernatural.

    • Funny, I was saying a simplified version of this to my daughter yesterday: We can't see the wind, but we can build a wind detector since the wind has an observable effect on the universe. We can't see atoms, but we can build an atom detector since atoms have an observable effect on the universe. We can't build a god detector or a ghost detector because gods and ghosts have no observable effect on the universe.

      Ghosts and gods and magic simply do not fit in with how we have observed the universe working and they would cause a lot of basic problems with things we can observe, yet they do not. The simplest explanation is that there are no such things as gods or ghosts or magic.

  • Seconding custard_swallower. Strict naturalism. I see no reason to believe in any supernatural claim of any kind.

    Relatively recently I had a new hypothesis for some of the feelings people attribute to hauntings; bad vibes. I know someone who smokes indoors in their home. Before I had purged supernatural beliefs of all kinds from my worldview I thought there was some kind of curse or haunting wrong with the place. No, it's the ill effects of third-hand smoke.

    Belief in non-theistic supernatural phenomena appears to be a crutch for theistic supernatural belief; it gives a convenient explanation for something so that you don't exercise your rational faculties to find the real reason and then have the kind of experience that can contribute to unraveling god-beliefs.

    • Of course, there are rational explanations to things that people think are supernatural, but some things transcend rational explanations, and remain unexplained. This is where we may start to consider the supernatural.

      • I've yet to find any such thing and those that have been presented to me tend to be in the 'we have insufficient information' category for why it can't be clearly determined what happened. People love to wedge the supernatural into those crevices in spite of still not being a good fit.

  • I'll believe anything you tell me, including gods and magic, as long as you can present evidence appropriate to your claim. Anyone who wants me to believe what they're saying about anything divine or supernatural had better be able to back it up, or else I'm going to laugh in their face.

    • An interesting case for you to dive into: The Skinwalker Ranch.

      • Why would I be interested in alien ghost stories? Cattle mutilation and alien abduction aren't credible examples of the supernatural.

      • I was quite interested in Snikwalker ranch for a hot second like 2 years ago, and what I can say is: There's no real evidence of anything supernatural, most of the claims are unverifiable and made by people who wanna believe in the first place, the previous owner of the ranch claimed they made up the supernatural bits to sell it, and every popular bit of information about is coded in scary music and spooky effects on TV programmes. I'd actually like to see if you got any like, scientific articles about it, because I never went that far with my interest. Just seems like a ranch with weird radio interference on Tuesdays. I'm open to accepting the existence of supernatural stuff, but evidence wise, I've never seen anything conclusive.

  • We are overzealous pattern recognition machines.

    The proto-hominids who saw a tiger in the bush when there wasn't one had a higher chance of passing on their genes than the ones who didn't see a tiger when there was one.

    And now their descendants see tigers in the stars.

    If LLMs have taught us anything about pattern recognition machines it's that when they don't find a pattern to match they don't say they have no matches... they just pull a somewhat fitting match off their arse, or an outright random one. They hallucinate.

    And that's even before we get to our actual minds. We've got pattern recognition machinery in our retinas. What reaches our brain is already highly processed (to make tigers easier to spot), and then it gets into the visual processing part of the brain, which uses sophisticated autocompletion using previously stored patterns to fill in the blanks and highlight anything remotely interesting... often including things that aren't there (see optical illusions, for instance). That's what we "see", and then we get to make up stuff based on that (and the same probably applies to our other senses, too).

    Add to that that we're notoriously bad at recognising randomness (or lack thereof). A coin falls heads up four times in a row and we suspect shenanigans, as if it wasn't as likely or unlikely as any other pattern.

    We see some craters that look like a smiley face (pattern recognition strikes again) on Mars and we think it's a fake picture (it's 2024, after all), or a Watchmen reference. And when we learn it's actually real our hair stands up. We get goosebumps. It can't be natural. Must be super natural. Aliens. Gods. Ancient civilizations. All while we ignore the thousands of craters that don't look like a smiley face.

    But, hey, at least we're not getting eaten by hidden tigers, so win some lose some, I guess.

  • Personally I take them with a grain of salt, some supernatural phenomena are probably not yet understood by current science. Now I sound like an ancient aliens person meme.

  • I don't have anything to add to this conversation as I'm in agreement that the "supernatural" is simply how humans have historically described natural phenomena that is not yet understood.

    Now... what I do find interesting is the shared art. I've seen similar styles, but not this piece. I looked it up and thought I would share because I find it to be pretty rad.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_engraving

    The Flammarion engraving is a wood engraving by an unknown artist. Its first documented appearance is in the book L'atmosphère : météorologie populaire ("The Atmosphere: Popular Meteorology"), published in 1888 by the French astronomer and writer Camille Flammarion.

    The illustration depicts a man, dressed as a pilgrim in a long robe and carrying a walking stick, who has reached a point where the flat Earth meets the firmament. The pilgrim kneels down and passes his head, shoulders, right arm, and the top of the walking stick through an opening in the firmament, which is depicted as covered on the inside by the stars, Sun, and Moon. Behind the sky, the pilgrim finds a marvelous realm of circling clouds, fires and suns. One of the elements of the cosmic machinery resembles traditional pictorial representations of the "wheel in the middle of a wheel" described in the visions of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel.

    • When I say supernatural, this is what I mean.

      • As the article says, "The supernatural is hypernymic to religion. Religions are standardized supernaturalist worldviews." It also says "the supernatural is featured in folklore and religious contexts, but can also feature as an explanation in more secular contexts, as in the cases of superstitions or belief in the paranormal. The term is attributed to non-physical entities, such as angels, demons, gods and spirits."

        There may be "non-physical entities, such as angels, demons, gods and spirits," but semantics clarifies how I would interpret their existence. They aren't entities as described by religious beliefs. Instead, they would be "natural" and certainly "alien" to the human experience. If they violate natural laws, it's only because humans lack the understanding to comprehend their nature.

        There are absolutely "phenomena" beyond our current understanding. And you are correct when you say "mainstream religions are actually complicated incomplete stories full of misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and half-truths." Science and history have shown this to be exactly the case.

        With that said, I am apostate for a good reason. Religion doesn't have the answers I zealously sought. It simply cannot, by its very nature and definition, do that. Science is the only way humans might honestly understand the world around them. While pragmatically I'm atheist, in terms of belief, I'm agnostic.

        Alien non-physical entities may exist. Perhaps it's probable... somewhere in the universe. However, most religious beliefs can be demystified and logically explained false. For everything else, such beliefs make good stories. Until science proves or disproves the belief though, it remains just that--belief in a story.

        I'd give anything to practice "magic." It's probably why I read so much fantasy. I love science fiction because it envisions so many very different and greater things. Frankly, I could have been spared an incredible amount of pain if there truly was a "benevolent" god I could trust. It would be absolutely wild to know that, beyond my short frail human existence, there factually is an afterlife.

        More important to me than anything is Truth. Believing in something for which there is no evidence does me more harm than good. Trusting in that which is known and natural keeps me steady and able to embrace the moment rather than laying false hopes in an improbable future.

        Sure. There absolutely could be non-physical entities. I would call them "alien" because that better describes them than our religious terms. If they exist though, I'd wager they wouldn't be friendly to humanity either by nature or intent. Angels and demons make better story devices than they do real life neighbors. We are at the top of our food chain. The last thing we need is to encounter something worse than we humans already are. If science ever proves that other beings exist, then we need to immediately determine next how to ensure human autonomy and survival amongst something that would more than likely be a threat.

  • I'm basically at a point where I don't think any actual magic or phenomena exists, but the disciplines of metaphysical practice themselves are worthwhile for introspection and working on your mindset. Also I don't like to give voice to my own skepticism that much - I don't defend it or argue because I can't be talked out of it and it's not very fun to be that guy. It's more fun to entertain the fanciful things and hold ideas lightly among people who are inclined to talk about phenomena.

279 comments