On Supernatural

The article linked in the title is awesome.

A couple of centuries ago, people might have agreed that a 747 taking off was a supernatural event, had they chanced to see one departing from the local airport, but not today... If you don't know how airplanes fly, they are supernatural to you, but if you do know, or perhaps even if you just know that someone else knows, then airplanes are no longer supernatural. The working definition is as much about the observer's state of mind as it is about the allegedly supernatural phenomenon. By that definition, the supernatural clearly exists. It just changes all the time.

So let's get a bit more serious and look at the actual definition, which is something like: outside of nature, or not following the laws of nature. By that definition, or any reasonable definition, the concept of the supernatural is barely coherent. It is easy for someone to say they believe in the supernatural, but if looks at the concept a bit closer, it simply loses meaning. The supernatural does not exist, by its very definition.

For example, let's say that we actually see Harry Potter disarm his opponent by pointing his magic wand and shouting the magic word, "Expelliarmus." Such an event is indeed supernatural -- until it actually happens. Once it happens, it is, by definition, natural. It might be new and surprising, but that does not matter. At one time, flight was new and surprising. For centuries, people believed that the laws of nature simply did not allow bigs hunks of metal to fly through the air. But they were wrong. That does not mean that the laws of nature changed. It simply means we did not fully understand them before. And of course, we do not fully understand them now, either.

[several paragraphs later]

Some may be tempted to try to rescue the supernatural by changing the definition to something like: things that humans can never fully understand. But that definition is not terribly interesting, and it certainly does not capture what people really mean when they speak of the supernatural. Those who know the most about quantum mechanics say that they do not really understand it, and never will. Richard Feynman, for example, admitted that he did not really understand quantum mechanics. Yet no one claims that quantum mechanics is supernatural. It is just really hard to understand.... Moreover, there may be things even more complicated than quantum mechanics. Some humans, like Richard Feynman, can understand quantum mechanics in the sense that they can show it is true and describe what occurs in mathematical terms. Perhaps there are natural phenomenon even more complicated, such that our minds are simply incapable of comprehending. But that does not make those events supernatural. It just means our minds are limited, something we knew already.

Anything that actually happens is part of nature, whether or not we understand how it works. If something does not happen, then it is not part of nature. The supernatural cannot, by its very definition, exist. So, in the end, belief in the supernatural comes down to belief in gibberish. No one can really believe in the supernatural if they think about it in any meaningful way. [my emphasis]

10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

LFACC - Who & Whether questions of God

In Letter from a Christian Citizen, Douglas Wilson raised many interesting points. This post will deal with the point of atheism towards Muslims and towards Christianity. [page 13-15] Here is how Wilson describes the issue:

You [Sam Harris] advance an argument that might be called an argument for partial atheism: “The truth is, you know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims” (7). But I am afraid that this is a false analogy entirely. You say, “Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions” (7). Well, no, not exactly. And well, actually, no, not at all.

Suppose we are considering a phenomenon that is, by most accounts, inexplicable as an unsupervised occurrence—three of us attend a sophisticated party uptown, and half way through the evening at the party we find a trout in the punch bowl. At this point, the three of us divide into three schools of thought. I think that Smith, a practical joker, put it there; our friend Murphy thinks that Jones, the avant-garde performance artist, put it there; and you think that it has simply shown up as the result of natural forces. My central point is not to interact with the truth or falsity of your naturalistic position—except perhaps through the use of this absurd example of the punchbowl—but rather to show that you are arguing for something completely different from what Murphy and I are arguing. We all have an explanation but your explanation is of a different kind altogether.

The differences between two of us (between Murphy and me) concern who put the trout in the lunchbowl. The difference between the both of us together and you is over whether someone put a trout in the punchbowl. And who and whether represent different questions entirely. Quite apart from who is right and who is wrong about this, it is important to note that we are not disagreeing in the same way or over the same kind of issue at all.

So when an atheist says "you understand why I don't believe in your god when you understand why you don't believe in other gods", atheist is missing a point. Both christians and muslims believe in a god, they are just disagreeing on whose version of god is true. We, atheists, cannot see any evidence to support ANY god. Wilson is right that who and whether are two different questions. However one of these questions (whether there is a god) must be answered first before asking which god to believe.

The sticky point is the burden of proof. From a pure logical angle, the burden of proof is with the claimant. There is no way for anyone to disprove anything which is only in the mind of the claimant. However, I can also agree that there is NO way any religion can prove the existence of a god which will/can intervene with the natural laws.

The demand of the proof is that it must be objective, repeatable and observable. For any miracle to be "repeatable", it is no longer miracle. When under a certain condition, a miracle *always* happens, then it is no longer miracle. It is just a scientific observable data. Millions of miracles are happening everyday everywhere, e.g. calling someone up using your mobile phone, life saving operations in the hospitals etc. They are no longer in the realm of religion.

Since there is no way religious people can demonstrate their imaginary god, we have to settle to other means of resolving the issue.

For me, if anything needs a creator, the creator also needs a creator. Since it is impossible, the conclusion I have is there is no creator. This settle the "whether" part. The rest flows logically and simply. The "who" does not worth asking.

The origin of universe and then the origin of life are unsolved questions. But I refuse to substitute "god" as a solution because, as pointed out above, that begs the question who created god, and who created the creator who created god,...

Even if a creator were to exist, the chance that the creator would be interested in human's daily activities is non-existence. The jump from a cosmic god to a personal god as claimed by the religious is another huge mental gymnastic no rational mind can perform.

The fact that Wilson pointed out this difference in Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation does not prove anything.

I will discuss other parts of Wilson's book in the future.

Religious literacy done right

Sorry that I have misunderstood "religious literacy" in my last post. Here is the correct way to approach. I agree and I recommend it.

Should children be protected from religion BS?

This video proposes 4 reasons of why kids should be exposed to religion literacy. I don't agree. Comments follow each of the reasons.
1. So they can better understand the world
I totally agree that we should educate our kids to understand the world, but that understanding should be based on reason, logic and observation. History should be learnt and should be learnt correctly, without the religious colouring of the facts. To let our kids understand the world, and the world-view of some religious people is OK as long as we treat the subject matter as facts, observation and social phenomena. We don't need all the imagining gods, sins that are inherited and all those incoherent nonsense.
I am not sure what it means by "religious literacy". A logical thinking curious mind is what we want our kids to have.
2. To enpower them
In order to enpower our kids to reject nonsensical religion stories, we need to infuse scientific principles to our kids early. Let them know the correct history, the unnecessary human suffering due to or in the name of religion. Help our kid to build a robust logical thinking mind and be able to challenge the preaching they will inevitable meet someday. Talk to our kids about the beauty of the cosmology, the wonders of science. Read them good peoms and help them enjoy good music. Enpowerment is about knowledge. Read the bible with your kids and help them to question the absurdity and inconsistency of the bible. BUT definitely, not send them to any sunday church service!
The Howard Dean example in the video demonstrates the stupidity of the USA population, not that of Dean. Yes, running for political position, one needs to be aware of the perception of the public. With increasing atheism in USA, running an office from a position of atheism should be a breeze of fresh air and may actually help a candidate to cross over the line, hopefully in the near future.
That knowledge in the bible is necessary part of an adult discourse is an indication of the social illness created by religion. Among all the literature, there are much better reading. At this point in time, it may be necessary to read the bible with your kids, especially in USA and Australia. However it should be done at an appropriate age, with guidance and with proper logical thinking applied.
3. To help them make their own informed choice
My question will be how many different religion ideas that we have to provide to our kids in order to make their informed choice. The correct informed choice, the default position, is atheism. Until proven otherwise, god does not exist. This basic logical thinking premise is more important in order for our kids to make healthy choice through their lives.
4. To prevent the "teen epiphany"
Again, do we introduce drugs to our kids to help them deal with "teen's drug epiphany". Again, the correct position is knowledge. The proper training in logical thinking, reasoning, the need to look at evidence and ability to argue your own position.

In my responses here, I have taken the position that the introduction of religious ideas as attending churches. If I have mis-interpreted the message, my apology. However, my position is that the bible is a fiction, a bad story in fact. The proper way of educating our kids is to educate - give them sound approaches to solve problems, give them tools to think, to argue and to make decision. If you are not sure, don't read the bible with your kids and don't expose that bad story to them early. Half-baked counter arguments against god will have an opposite effect when teens are trying to learn to be independent. If you want to inoculate against religion, give them the power of logic, evidence-based thinking skill and lots of literature exposure to enrich their emotion, and the language to express their feelings - using the great words from the great literature instead.

Does it take a comedian to tell you how ridiculous is the christian BS?

Some theories of religion

Excerpt from Theological Incorrectness: Why Religious People Believe What They Shouldn't by D. Jason Slone:

Edward Tylor and James Frazer:

religion had evolved from simple to complex in form and substance. They theorized that it must have originated as ¡§animism¡¨ or ¡§magic¡¨ and then morphed progressively into polytheism, monotheism, and agnosticism. Agnosticism in turn, they theorized, would eventually be replaced by pure scientific atheism. Using data about primitive religions gathered from travel writings, folk tales, oral stories, and so forth, these scholars argued that religion was something like a "folk science." Primitive men and women appealed to religious agents as a way to explain why otherwise unexplainable things happened in their world.

Sigmund Freud:

religion was nothing but the by-product of deeply rooted psychological conflicts between individual desires (what we want to do) and social rules (what we are allowed to do). Using data gathered from clinical psychotherapy, Freud hypothesized that religion soothes psychological discomforts such as the dissonance one feels about human mortality, about our powerlessness over the forces of nature, about repressed sexual desires, and so forth. Religion, he claimed, fulfills psychological needs such as the desire for a permanent father figure to protect us from bad things, the desire to be relieved of guilt, and so forth.

Karl Marx:

religion fulfilled the function of maintaining the socioeconomic status quo for the wealthy and powerful people (the ¡§bourgeoisie¡¨), such as the owners of businesses, land, money, and other forms of capital, by "naturalizing" (i.e., explaining) economic differences through religious myths. Religion was, according to Marx, an important pillar of the cultural "superstructure" (the non-economic aspects of society) because it helped to maintain the basic economic disparities inherent in capitalism itself. Religion is very popular, he theorized, because it makes oppressed people feel better about their harsh lives by promising them rewards in an afterlife. "Religious distress", Marx wrote famously, "is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."

Emile Durkheim:

Durkheim studied religious primitives, like the Australian Aborigines and the American Indians, because he believed they offered scholars a clear example of the earliest and therefore most basic form of religion, which he called "totemism". According to Durkheim¡¦s theory, human beings from birth live in social groups that constantly face the threat of internal disintegration (a la Freuds internal conflict). To prevent disintegration, the groups invent something to "cohere" them. One way that humans achieve group cohesion is to establish a group identity marker, a "totem", which represents the clan itself (e.g., the "coyote" clan, or the ¡§fox¡¨ clan, or, to use a more recent example, Russia is represented by the bear and the United States by the eagle). Then they elevate the totem to the level of a deity in icons and in rituals, and construct prohibitive rules, "taboos", against its desecration. The group worships the totem (hence "totemism"), which for all practical purposes means that the group worships itself. This enhances an individual's identification with the group and thereby creates group cohesion.

Max Weber:

among other things, that religious ideas function as "ideal types", and ideal types motivate human action in the world (toward the achievement of the ideal). For example, Jesus established an ethical ideal type in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1 - 7:27). Today, ideally, Christians strive to live up to this ideal.