FocusMyView said

I want to technically leave room for doubt. I cannot disprove a god of some sort exists, and some of these concepts would indeed be able to cure, or appear in the sky to thousands at one time. While the evidence may reflect something more like 1 – 1/10 as the likelihood of most of our God concepts not existing, the trend over time seems to have come from 1 – 9/10 in the past reckonings. So the long view, or trend, gives us basically a 100% likelihood of a God not existing, with the tiniest possibility that He does exist. 

Got it. Thank you very much. And thank you for enduring the formalism. We appear to agree here – perhaps only disputing small matters of degree.

Based on this and prior comments, we appear to agree that:

– it is generally a bad idea when people believe unjustified claims; and 
– one cannot definitively know the truth value of the proposition: “There is no supernatural.”

Would you think the following is true?

If person A does not / cannot definitively know that either X or not(X), then person B is thereby justified or licensed to believe that X.

If true, please explain – I would find it fascinating.

If not true, then, apologies, but I’m not yet grasping what about the (semi-strong) agnostic position you found objectionable before. I’m not presently able to isolate it. My intent is not to be argumentative, but rather to understand your view, and correct mine where appropriate. Cheers!

Ok, first of all I have dodged or even supported the idea that a “supernatural” can exist for the simplicity of arguing about miracles and how they seem to end up being tied to a or The God. Stephen sported a good rebuttal to the idea of the supernatural, but it seems to me he may have left it after being mired in meaning. It seems the very notion of “supernatural” is a complex misapplication of naturalism to a Deity of Long Ago. An all powerful being split the Sea. Of course He did, He is simply magnitudes more powerful than anything else. If such a Being exists, it is super (powerful) and natural (uses power to achieve results). 

If person A does not / cannot definitively know that either X or not(X), then person B is thereby justified or licensed to believe that X.

Is there some sort of relationship between A and B? Is A a teacher and B a student, formally or informally?
I really cannot tie up B’s justification or license to the knowledge of A. Unless A can “prove” X or not(X) to B’s satisfaction, B is going to believe what B is going to believe. So B’s beliefs are not dependent on what A knows or does not know, only what A can convince (emotional argument > intellectual argument) B of will affect B’s beliefs.

That is my best effort to answer. Please try again if I completely missed the point.   

I am not usually a strong anti-agnostic/anti-moderate. Live and let live. Any time Iran gets into the news (as it has recently) I am reminded of the giant plank in the eyes of Western moderates and even the atheist four horsemen when they talk about Islamic moderates as a problem. The West established and supports a religiously founded entity in the ME and there has been serious blowback from the region’s people ever since. They happen to be Islamic. Religion is a common rallying point for many civilized endeavors, so their pushback to Western Imperialism is seen as Islamic hostility. At any rate, it was more an emotional outburst than a long standing desire to abolish religion or agnosticism. 

FMV – thanks for the two very thoughtful posts in response.

Critique of Agnosticism

First, I think your question is an insightful one, “what is the relationship between A & B?” The nature of that relationship clearly changes the ethical/moral tinge of the situation.

That said, I’d proffer that, irrespective of who A & B indeed are, A’s lack of knowing X/not(X) in no way generates a causal/justificatory/licensing framework for B’s belief [in either X/not(X)]. A’s lack of claim to knowledge about X cannot thereby be credited nor blamed for B’s belief. B’s belief [in either X/not(X)] is on B, whether such belief is justified or not.

However, I now think I get the nub of your critique of the (semi-strong) agnostic position: that B, due to the inertia inherent in human nature, will continue to believe whatever they want (unless confronted). I would agree that is true. But, if unjustified, then B is just running afoul of our already-agreed maxim, namely that it’s generally a bad idea to hold unjustified beliefs.

From there, the question then wraps back to A’s moral obligation to B, if any, where A is aware that B believes X/not(X) unjustifiably. First order, B’s beliefs are B’s responsibility – A’s underlying epistemic position with respect to X has no bearing. Second order, if B’s unjustified beliefs are harmful, to B and/or to others, then does this impact A’s responsibilities to correct B? I’d say it depends, and scales as a function of the closeness of the relationship, the level of harmfulness, and the level of urgency, amongst other things.

Curious your thoughts/reactions, and whether I actually have your view in hand.

The Supernatural

I take up the mantle of Stephen’s indistinguishability insight/critique; though if I misuse it, the fault is only mine. I would agree that, like with miracle, we do not have a reliable mechanism to distinguish “supernatural” from “sufficiently outside our understanding”. This does make empirical identification of the supernatural difficult, but I’d argue that this alone doesn’t undo the concept.

I’d also agree with you that miracles are usually attached to supernatural agency. Part of this, I think, is because most people tend to think of miraculous occurrences as thecalling card of supernatural agents. I also think agentism is a mental bias our brains have wired into them. If you’d like to disentangle miracles and the supernatural (especially supernatural agency), I for one would love to hear your thoughts.

Now, your position that there could be a deity (which is sufficiently powerful to qualify as such) that nonetheless wholly falls into the natural sphere is a very intriguing one. In other venues, funnily enough, I’ve leveled this critique instrumentally at the idea of the tradition 4-omni deity we most often encounter in our culture. But, I’ve never actually tried to really stake out the view. Curious if you have, or would care to – I’d find it fascinating.

As a retort, someone trying to wall off the traditional deity concept could suggest that, by definition, their concept of the deity could only be “supernatural.” I think the indistinguishability issue would then creep back in (i.e., sure, you can conceptualize deity as only supernatural, but you’d never be able to tell if that’s right).

One other thing I’ve found in typical conversations about the supernatural is that no one really ever explains how the two realms (natural and supernatural) can even interact in principle. This might seem picayune at first, but it (at least for me) is a black hole of confusion if you really try to think it through. How exactly can the physical (the stuff that’s the subject matter of physics, broadly) interact at all with the non-physical (that is decidedly NOT that stuff, by definition)?

NB – Regarding your point about Knaves & Knights, I remember the feeling of how warped my brain was the first time I encountered the Monty Hall problem in probability. After my vehement protestations, my logic professor had to take out a piece of paper and brute-force prove it to me why you should switch doors. For me, it’s a sobering reminder of how fallible our brains are, even when we’re gripped by the feeling of being dead certain.

I think you have a correct view on my view of the belief spectrum. High end agnosticism is weak willed atheism. There can be value in that. The charge that atheism goes too far because it claims too much knowledge is counteracted by the charge that the knowledge on hand is simply not being employed.

I agree with your synopsis on the supernatural being completely tied to God. If that Being exists, he is by definition very powerful (or advanced technologically). Then Angels rescuing car crash victims is a natural phenomenon, through and through. Call it a miracle if you like.

It seems to me the idea of the supernatural is somewhat linked to literalism. As explanations came from geology and biology as to how the world became as it is, and as the masses became literate, the quasi-mythy explanations in the Bible turned to hard facts of reality for some. So there was a fight for Truth, and as you say some wall off anything from a Deity to be termed “supernatural.” I see this as more a defense mechanism than an intellectual exercise.

Again, my denial of the sense of the word “supernatural” is not tied to my belief in God. My denial that the miracles happen (Causer causing) is tied to my atheism.

I wonder if the word “supernatural” makes sense to most theists.

First and foremost I do not count those who hold weak willed atheism to be weak willed. Your persistence and careful approach in your questioning speaks for itself. For that matter, a certain agnostic on these pages demonstrates his strong will to build bridges between all peoples every time things go sideways on a post. Certainly a person’s belief system do not define their character. 

Let’s define something real quick: is an atheist
– someone who does not believe there is a god, or
– someone who believes there is not a god?

Self defining. This atheist sees no difference for himself, having taken a long look at the arguments for and against God. 

my denial of the sense of the word “supernatural” is not tied to my belief in God.

If a God exists, it is perfectly natural. God saying abra cadabra and the world appearing is going to be the natural result of said God existing. He is defined by his powers, so anything he does that is powerful is natural. That said, if tomorrow a God appears out of the sky and lifts NYC up into the heavens like an entrée on a plate, I would not consider that supernatural. Whatever a God can do, surprising or not, that is what makes him a God in the first place. (I feel like we are re-iterating this point back and forth to each other, perhaps to shake out any differences?) 

Let us approach this with something solid. If tomorrow’s headline read that Cold Fusion was suddenly workable, many would call that a miracle. Perhaps that is more the US beating the USSR in 1980 Olympic hockey miracle. No one would think it was supernatural. 

My denial that the miracles happen (Causer causing) is tied to my atheism.

Clearly this atheist does not believe a Causer exists.

I would be completely skeptical if the lead scientist on the project said he prayed to God and it was revealed in a dream. There are other answers I think would fit in better there, even if the lead scientist himself insists he saw God and it gave him the answer. The relevant formulas, once again, could be called a miracle. They would still be natural. 

Would I be skeptical if the lead in tomorrow’s paper/FB headlines was a Cold Fusion is now doable? Yes, but that is hard to separate from my skepticism on News Media reporting on science in the first place. Still, I might click on that link! 

To clarify, I am unwilling to completely close the possibility of a God existing for the same reasons many middling agnostics are unwilling to close out the possibility. I think its impossible to know. Perhaps it is a matter of how we rate our probabilities after all. 

Would you think that there would be (in principle) a “physics” of this type of god? I.e., that if we abstract away our own mental limitations, that we could set out the “laws of nature” by which this god must abide?

I could not begin to imagine what the constraints might be. The person to ask, imho, would be a double major in theology and physics, or any tenured physicist who believes in a God, essence or otherwise. If you know one, and such a person responds, please let me know what he would say.