Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Supernatural is a description for something that is outside the various currently known rules and explanations of the natural world that science has come up with based on demonstrable evidence. In this case for example, we are given various descriptions of an entity in the Quran that does not seem to conform to explanations derived using repeatable, testable, demonstrable methods  e.g. unique, eternal, no beginning and no end, beyond time and space, nothing like it in this world, etc etc.

No it isn’t. “…outside the various currently known rules and explanations of the natural world that science has come up with” refers to our state of knowledge about a possible phenomenon, but not necessarily to a characteristic of the phenomenon itself. Lots of “somethings” were once “outside the various currently known rules and explanations of the natural world” etc but are now inside them. Would that mean that they too were previously supernatural and somehow became natural only once science had explained them?

In short, you cannot conflate a state of knowledge about a thing with the necessary character of that thing. 

I do not need to demonstrate that the supernatural exists as I am not making an argument that it exists - I am merely communicating my belief in order to confirm that I am a theist - as we are on a discussion forum of theists and atheists.

If you want to justify a belief that a supernatural god/angel exist(ed), then you need to demonstrate first the existence of a “supernatural” state of being for it/them to inhabit at all. On the other hand if you want to confine yourself to there being characters in a story that are described as “supernatural” and you find meaning in that, then there’s no "supernatural" to be demonstrated.   

True some/ many religious people may express a belief that god is a "hard fact" - I think this is done to convey the strength or certainty of their belief. But as they provide no repeatable, testable, demonstrable evidence for god, which means their belief is based on interpretations of subjective experiences, on the testimony of others, and on aesthetics, presumably the way we use language would categorise what they express as a belief rather than fact.

Agreed.

People in society have broadly adopted the view that society should show respect for other people's beliefs within certain limits,…

Depends which society, but in secular societies at least I’d say that it’s more accurate to say, “people in society have broadly adopted the view that society should show respect for other people's rights to hold their beliefs…” rather than respect for the beliefs themselves. I respect the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury for example to hold his beliefs. I also think his beliefs are if idiotic.       

…maybe because they see it as a way of reducing violent conflict in society and because they want respect shown for their own beliefs and aesthetics. Of course there will be some problems in accommodating conflicting beliefs - and as part of the process of a functioning society, these conflicting beliefs are identified and debated, which all takes time. No system is perfect but discussing the issues seems to be a good starting point to managing conflicts.

Which is to miss my point. To paraphrase, two mathematicians for example who disagree about a calculation will likely work together to see who’s right; two clerics who cloak themselves in the certainty of the rules of a factual and inerrant god on the other hand will try to kill each other. Why? Because in each of their minds there’s no possibility that either of them is wrong. The point here is that provisionality and uncertainty often have very different real-world consequences from those of certainty and absolutism.     

When beliefs are held by a substantial part of the population, regardless of what the beliefs are, they will influence the rules that society comes up with to regulate its behaviour and morality. Adding a god belief into the mix is one method of persuasion, but there are plenty of others e.g. fighting for a cause, a political belief, beliefs about race or culture or nation states or abstract notions of freedom, honour etc. which are also down to aesthetics and can't be demonstrated as hard facts.

See above.

A religious person stating "god hates gays" seems to be voicing one of their own aesthetic preferences - and by that I mean that there may be many people who experience a "yuk" reaction to the thoughts /visualisation of sexual acts, but only some of them will express it in public and seek to influence large groups of society to enforce rules and try to control people to prevent people from engaging in a particularly activity. They may have various reasons such as a self-serving agenda, preservation of power or creating a particular sort of order and conformity in society, but it seems to come down to aesthetics and particular types of people with the ability to persuade and influence large groups of people into going in a particular direction. Despite it being an imperfect system, democracy and politics and discussion seems to be the preferred way for the individuals who make up society to come up with ways of regulating competing beliefs in society. So I assume you don't want people to stop expressing their beliefs or engaging in the current system to regulate beliefs.

You’re not getting it still. You might think they’re voicing one of their own aesthetic preferences. I might think they’re voicing one of their own aesthetic preferences. The point though is that they don’t think they’re voicing one of their own aesthetic preferences. They think they’re providing the facts, and so feel empowered to act accordingly. After all, when you’re really, absolutely, 100% guaranteed certain that you’re right about that what need have you of the opinions – or the aesthetic preferences – of other people?   

You referred to a god handing down his rules via an angel. Either you think this god and angel are allegorical characters (akin to the hare and the tortoise) or you think they actually exist(ed) regardless of the stories told about them. I thought you believed the latter, but if instead you think that god/angel are epistemically equivalent to hare/tortoise then well and good.   

I don't think they are similar to the hare and tortoise - I assume Aesop made it clear that was a fictional story, whereas it is not stated in the Quran that these are fictional stories to illustrate some point.

That’s irrelevant. The intentions of the respective authors are neither here nor there. What matters is whether the god/angel or hare/tortoise existed regardless of the accounts of them had been written.

As I have stated many times before, I believe that the supernatural entity described in the Quran is real albeit that I don't know how much of the description is literal as opposed to allegorical or illustrative due to the constraints of language, but I am not claiming or making an argument that it is real or that the contents of the Quran is fact as I have no way to demonstrate that it is real or factually correct.

You’re tying yourself in knots here. So you believe it to be a fact (ie, “real”), but at the same time you cannot justify the belief so you are not “claiming” it is a fact/real? But doesn’t a belief that something is a fact require at least a claim to yourself that it’s real, even if you stop short of saying that anyone else should take your personal fact belief seriously?

You seem to me here to have painted yourself into a corner of a new category of “fact” – a personal fact that’s just a fact for you, but isn’t a also fact for anyone else.

How does that work? Can you have a fact just for you about, say, a planet orbiting between Earth and Mars, or do you have personal facts only in respect of your religious beliefs? And how should we respond when lots of people have their own personal facts, and then use those personal facts to justify killing people for blaspheming against their personal facts?     

So for me it remains a belief, not fact. Islam was pitched to its adherents as a way of regulating their behaviour as individuals within society based on a belief in the truth of what is stated in the Quran, and the Quran does state that some parts of it are allegorical and some parts should be taken literally, and only the supernatural entity described in the Quran knows for certain which parts are allegorical and which parts are literal. This has given some space for interpretation and application of the guidance in the Quran, depending on time and location and context.

“…and only the supernatural entity described in the Quran knows for certain which parts are allegorical and which parts are literal” !!!  So you have a personal fact that isn’t an actual fact that there really is a supernatural god and your personal fact that isn’t an actual fact about this supernatural god is also that only this same factual/non-factual supernatural god can explain which parts of a text about himself are allegorical and which are literally (ie, factually) true? Only the “literally true” parts might also be personal facts rather than actual facts. Or something.

Does anything strike you as problematic about this dog’s breakfast of reasoning?   
 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No it isn’t. “…outside the various currently known rules and explanations of the natural world that science has come up with” refers to our state of knowledge about a possible phenomenon, but not necessarily to a characteristic of the phenomenon itself. Lots of “somethings” were once “outside the various currently known rules and explanations of the natural world” etc but are now inside them. Would that mean that they too were previously supernatural and somehow became natural only once science had explained them?

In short, you cannot conflate a state of knowledge about a thing with the necessary character of that thing.

Incorrect. Supernatural is an adjective that is applied to phenomena that science cannot explain. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural. There is no necessary character other than it cannot be explained by science.

If you want to justify a belief that a supernatural god/angel exist(ed), then you need to demonstrate first the existence of a “supernatural” state of being for it/them to inhabit at all. On the other hand if you want to confine yourself to there being characters in a story that are described as “supernatural” and you find meaning in that, then there’s no "supernatural" to be demonstrated.   

I don't need to justify a belief. I am merely informing you that I hold such a belief.

Depends which society, but in secular societies at least I’d say that it’s more accurate to say, “people in society have broadly adopted the view that society should show respect for other people's rights to hold their beliefs…” rather than respect for the beliefs themselves. I respect the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury for example to hold his beliefs. I also think his beliefs are if idiotic.       

Ok

Which is to miss my point. To paraphrase, two mathematicians for example who disagree about a calculation will likely work together to see who’s right; two clerics who cloak themselves in the certainty of the rules of a factual and inerrant god on the other hand will try to kill each other. Why? Because in each of their minds there’s no possibility that either of them is wrong. The point here is that provisionality and uncertainty often have very different real-world consequences from those of certainty and absolutism.

Incorrect - two clerics can be certain they are right but that doesn't mean they will try to kill each other unless they also have a natural propensity for violence. In any case, that misses the point I made - people who disagree about political or moral beliefs and cloak themselves in the certainty that their aesthetic preference is the correct one may also try to kill each other if they have a violent nature. The problem is the certainty combined with a tendency to violence.

You’re not getting it still. You might think they’re voicing one of their own aesthetic preferences. I might think they’re voicing one of their own aesthetic preferences. The point though is that they don’t think they’re voicing one of their own aesthetic preferences. They think they’re providing the facts, and so feel empowered to act accordingly. After all, when you’re really, absolutely, 100% guaranteed certain that you’re right about that what need have you of the opinions – or the aesthetic preferences – of other people?   

See above - you're not getting that the issue is people who feel certain they are right, not religion.

You referred to a god handing down his rules via an angel. Either you think this god and angel are allegorical characters (akin to the hare and the tortoise) or you think they actually exist(ed) regardless of the stories told about them. I thought you believed the latter, but if instead you think that god/angel are epistemically equivalent to hare/tortoise then well and good.   

That’s irrelevant. The intentions of the respective authors are neither here nor there. What matters is whether the god/angel or hare/tortoise existed regardless of the accounts of them had been written.

You’re tying yourself in knots here. So you believe it to be a fact (ie, “real”), but at the same time you cannot justify the belief so you are not “claiming” it is a fact/real? But doesn’t a belief that something is a fact require at least a claim to yourself that it’s real, even if you stop short of saying that anyone else should take your personal fact belief seriously?

You seem to me here to have painted yourself into a corner of a new category of “fact” – a personal fact that’s just a fact for you, but isn’t a also fact for anyone else.

How does that work? Can you have a fact just for you about, say, a planet orbiting between Earth and Mars, or do you have personal facts only in respect of your religious beliefs? And how should we respond when lots of people have their own personal facts, and then use those personal facts to justify killing people for blaspheming against their personal facts?     

“…and only the supernatural entity described in the Quran knows for certain which parts are allegorical and which parts are literal” !!!  So you have a personal fact that isn’t an actual fact that there really is a supernatural god and your personal fact that isn’t an actual fact about this supernatural god is also that only this same factual/non-factual supernatural god can explain which parts of a text about himself are allegorical and which are literally (ie, factually) true? Only the “literally true” parts might also be personal facts rather than actual facts. Or something.

Does anything strike you as problematic about this dog’s breakfast of reasoning?

No - nothing strikes me as problematic with me holding a belief about a supernatural entity that I am not expecting anyone else to take seriously. Given the current reasoning on this board that people cannot choose what they believe, it seems entirely reasonable that I can hold a belief in a particular supernatural entity being 'real' while being unable to demonstrate its existence to be fact. So no, I am not tying myself in knots or painting myself into a corner or any other trite idiom you want to employ to state your opinion. But you are of course entitled to hold that opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Incorrect. Supernatural is an adjective that is applied to phenomena that science cannot explain. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural. There is no necessary character other than it cannot be explained by science.

Firstly the linked definition is not the same as the one you have suggested, albeit not massively dissimilar. But if you are linking to a definition, why not actually use it.

But on to your definition - how can we know that science cannot explain something - that requires us to be able to determine what will happen in the future, which seems a tad challenging. Certainly we can say that there are things that science has not explained, but that isn't the same as cannot explain.

I think there is a clear bias in both your definition and the linked one - specifically that these phenomena actually exist - that there are things that cannot be explained by science or lie beyond/transcend the laws of nature. Given that we cannot presume what science may explain in the future, it seems to me that we cannot presume that such things actually exist.

Realistically this merely folds back into god-of-the-gaps stuff. Effectively that the supernatural relates to what we have not explained rather than what we cannot explain.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Firstly the linked definition is not the same as the one you have suggested, albeit not massively dissimilar. But if you are linking to a definition, why not actually use it.

Because I had already written the meaning based on the common understanding of how the word is used, and saw no reason to edit once I linked to a dictionary definition to support what I wrote. If you want to use the actual definition, feel free to copy and paste it. I intend to stick with what I wrote. I suggest instead of trying to micro-manage what people write, you stick to addressing the actual issues raised.

But on to your definition - how can we know that science cannot explain something - that requires us to be able to determine what will happen in the future, which seems a tad challenging. Certainly we can say that there are things that science has not explained, but that isn't the same as cannot explain.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/supernatural- you will find various dictionaries with similar definitions indicating science cannot explain what is described as supernatural.

I think there is a clear bias in both your definition and the linked one - specifically that these phenomena actually exist - that there are things that cannot be explained by science or lie beyond/transcend the laws of nature. Given that we cannot presume what science may explain in the future, it seems to me that we cannot presume that such things actually exist.

Realistically this merely folds back into god-of-the-gaps stuff. Effectively that the supernatural relates to what we have not explained rather than what we cannot explain.

Nope - there is no indication that these phenomena exist. You seem confused. Supernatural is an adjective to describe concepts that are beyond natural laws. Science is only concerned with explaining phenomena that conform to natural laws, therefore science cannot be used to explain supernatural concepts. Religions on the other hand are more concerned with addressing some of the questions that are raised by humans about aesthetics and abstract notions such as morality, purpose and meaning e.g. why did the universe come into existence, what is the purpose of our existence, what gives meaning to our lives, is there something more than what we experience through natural laws, what actions are moral etc, which you presumably agree are concepts that science does not address. So you are correct about religion addressing issues where there are gaps in what is addressed by science, which is more concerned with the how and the what. While such "why" questions continue to remain part of the human psyche and experience, presumably religion will continue to address these questions. People who find that the supernatural aspects of religious thought and its rituals and practices are adding value to their lives and giving their lives meaning and purpose that they find attractive or persuasive, will presumably continue to be religious.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Incorrect. Supernatural is an adjective that is applied to phenomena that science cannot explain. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural. There is no necessary character other than it cannot be explained by science.

Bullshit. Prof Davey has already corrected you on this, so briefly only:

First, what science does and does not know describes only a state of a knowledge about a phenomenon, not the phenomenon itself.

Second, notwithstanding the above there’s a world of difference between “cannot” and “does” not. You have no idea what science “cannot” explain in principle even if that did have any relevance to the natural/supernatural status of the observed phenomenon.

Third, if nonetheless you wanted to stick with “supernatural = stuff science hasn’t explained” daftness then you must think that everything science does now explain and so is natural in character was previously supernatural – magnetism. lightning, gravity, you name it – all were once supernatural but somehow on the day someone figured them out became natural.

I don’t suppose that’s the corner into which you intended to paint yourself, so perhaps you’d be better sticking to conventional “supernatural = not natural” definition.

I don't need to justify a belief. I am merely informing you that I hold such a belief.

I’d have thought you’d want to justify it to yourself at least (I know I would), but in any case then you have no grounds to expect anyone else to treat your belief “god/angel” any more seriously than you treat my belief “leprechauns”.   

Incorrect - two clerics can be certain they are right but that doesn't mean they will try to kill each other unless they also have a natural propensity for violence.

Except of course we live in a world where that’s exactly what happens. Persuade yourself that your beliefs are certainly correct (and for that matter that the object of those beliefs wants to you protect him from blasphemers) and killing is exactly what people do. Here’s the why:

“Islamic law[edit]

Traditional jurisprudence[edit]

The Quran curses those who commit blasphemy and promises blasphemers humiliation in the Hereafter.[5] However, whether any Quranic verses prescribe worldly punishments is debated: some Muslims believe that no worldly punishment is prescribed while others disagree.[6] Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) of Sunni and Shia madhabs have declared different punishments for the religious crime of blasphemy, and they vary between schools. These are as follows:[18][2][25]
Hanafi – views blasphemy as synonymous with apostasy, and therefore, accepts the repentance of apostates. Those who refuse to repent, their punishment is death if the blasphemer is a Muslim man, and if the blasphemer is a woman, she must be imprisoned with coercion (beating) till she repents and returns to Islam.[26] Imam Abu Hanifa opined that a non-Muslim can not be killed for committing blasphemy.[27] Other sources[who?] say his punishment must be a tazir (discretionary, can be arrest, caning, etc.).[28][29][failed verification]

Maliki – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy for Muslim men, and repentance is not accepted. For women, death is not the punishment suggested, but she is arrested and punished till she repents and returns to Islam or dies in custody.[30][31] A non-Muslim who commits blasphemy against Islam must be punished; however, the blasphemer can escape punishment by converting and becoming a devout Muslim.[32]
Hanbali – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy, for both Muslim men and women.[33][34]
Shafi’i – recognizes blasphemy as a separate offense from apostasy, but accepts the repentance of blasphemers. If the blasphemer does not repent, the punishment is death.[2][35]

Ja'fari (Shia) – views blasphemy against Islam, the Prophet, or any of the Imams, to be punishable with death, if the blasphemer is a Muslim.[36] In case the blasphemer is a non-Muslim, he is given a chance to convert to Islam, or else killed.[37]

Some jurists suggest that the sunnah in Sahih al-Bukhari, 3:45:687 and Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:369 provide a basis for a death sentence for the crime of blasphemy, even if someone claims not to be an apostate, but has committed the crime of blasphemy.[38] Some modern Muslim scholars contest that Islam supports blasphemy law, stating that Muslim jurists made the offense part of Sharia.[38][39]

The words of Ibn Abbas, a prominent jurist and companion of Muhammad, are frequently cited to justify the death penalty as punishment blasphemy:[6]
Any Muslim who blasphemes against Allah or His Messenger or blasphemes against any one from amongst the Prophets is thereby guilty of rejecting the truth of the Messenger of God, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. This is apostasy (ridda) for which repentance is necessary; if he repents he is released; if not then he is killed. Likewise, if any other person [non-Muslim] who is protected under a covenant becomes hostile and blasphemes against Allah or any one of Allah's Prophet and openly professes this, he breaches his covenant, so kill him.

— Ibn Qayyim al Jawziya and Ata 1998, 4:379
In Islamic jurisprudence, Kitab al Hudud and Taz'ir cover punishment for blasphemous acts.[40][41]””

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy#:~:text=Death%20is%20mandatory%20in%20cases,repent%2C%20the%20punishment%20is%20death.

And here’s the what:

“A mob stormed a police station in Pakistan and killed a man suspected of blasphemy while he was in custody, in yet another incident of religion-linked violence in the country.
The victim, identified as Muhammad Waris, was dragged out of the police station in the Nankana Sahib city of eastern Pakistan by the mob, officials said on Saturday.
The man, in his twenties, was reportedly in police custody for desecrating the Quran, the Muslim holy book, according to police spokesperson Muhammad Waqas.
The mob stormed the police station, dragged Waris out, beat him to death and attempted to set his body on fire, Mr Waqas said. “Police could not resist them because a handful of officials were present in the police station,” he said.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/pakistan-mob-attacks-blasphemy-b2280638.html

In any case, that misses the point I made - people who disagree about political or moral beliefs and cloak themselves in the certainty that their aesthetic preference is the correct one may also try to kill each other if they have a violent nature. The problem is the certainty combined with a tendency to violence.

It’s not a point. Moral philosophers and suchlike generally don’t “cloak themselves in the certainty that their aesthetic preference is the correct one” at all. They develop their arguments in articles and books, and debate them too with those of opposing views. What they don’t do though is to drag their opponents on to the street and beat them to death. That behaviour seems to solely the domain of the religious. 

Why do you suppose that is?   

See above - you're not getting that the issue is people who feel certain they are right, not religion.

Simply not true. Religions are full of “sure and certains”; science, philosophy etc are not. People may well “feel” they are right in both cases but only the former are certain of it – and so sometimes behave accordingly.   

No - nothing strikes me as problematic with me holding a belief about a supernatural entity that I am not expecting anyone else to take seriously.

And nor it seems that so many of your fellow believers do expect others to take it seriously – so seriously in fact that they’ll kill them for criticising their beliefs.

Given the current reasoning on this board that people cannot choose what they believe, it seems entirely reasonable that I can hold a belief in a particular supernatural entity being 'real' while being unable to demonstrate its existence to be fact.

You’re making a category error here. “The current reasoning on this board” concerns the different levels of abstraction of decision-making. “Free” will may be illusory, but nonetheless at a experiential level you’re as capable of changing your mind as anyone else.   

It’s “reasonable” that you can “hold a belief in a particular supernatural entity being 'real' while being unable to demonstrate its existence to be fact” only inasmuch as you mean it’s reasonable for you to believe anything you like, but not that it’s a reasoned position to take. You might also by the way want to pay some attention to the behaviours of others who think the same beliefs are “reasonable” too, but behave despicably in their name.         

So no, I am not tying myself in knots or painting myself into a corner or any other trite idiom you want to employ to state your opinion. But you are of course entitled to hold that opinion.

You precisely tied yourself in knots when you essayed your “it's a fact for me but not a real fact for you” incoherence, and my opinion about that was set out in the argument I gave you and that you haven’t rebutted.

Just as a coda by the way, that some people who believe as you do behave despicably because of those same beliefs isn’t an epistemic point about whether the beliefs are well-founded or not. They could be true (though fortunately there’s no reason to think that are) and be consequentially horrible nonetheless, but in your shoes that would at least give me pause I think with my “subjective fact but not an objective real fact” cognitive dissonance.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Bullshit. Prof Davey has already corrected you on this, so briefly only:

First, what science does and does not know describes only a state of a knowledge about a phenomenon, not the phenomenon itself.

Second, notwithstanding the above there’s a world of difference between “cannot” and “does” not. You have no idea what science “cannot” explain in principle even if that did have any relevance to the natural/supernatural status of the observed phenomenon.

Third, if nonetheless you wanted to stick with “supernatural = stuff science hasn’t explained” daftness then you must think that everything science does now explain and so is natural in character was previously supernatural – magnetism. lightning, gravity, you name it – all were once supernatural but somehow on the day someone figured them out became natural.

I don’t suppose that’s the corner into which you intended to paint yourself, so perhaps you’d be better sticking to conventional “supernatural = not natural” definition.

I’d have thought you’d want to justify it to yourself at least (I know I would), but in any case then you have no grounds to expect anyone else to treat your belief “god/angel” any more seriously than you treat my belief “leprechauns”.   

Except of course we live in a world where that’s exactly what happens. Persuade yourself that your beliefs are certainly correct (and for that matter that the object of those beliefs wants to you protect him from blasphemers) and killing is exactly what people do. Here’s the why:

“Islamic law[edit]

Traditional jurisprudence[edit]

The Quran curses those who commit blasphemy and promises blasphemers humiliation in the Hereafter.[5] However, whether any Quranic verses prescribe worldly punishments is debated: some Muslims believe that no worldly punishment is prescribed while others disagree.[6] Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) of Sunni and Shia madhabs have declared different punishments for the religious crime of blasphemy, and they vary between schools. These are as follows:[18][2][25]
Hanafi – views blasphemy as synonymous with apostasy, and therefore, accepts the repentance of apostates. Those who refuse to repent, their punishment is death if the blasphemer is a Muslim man, and if the blasphemer is a woman, she must be imprisoned with coercion (beating) till she repents and returns to Islam.[26] Imam Abu Hanifa opined that a non-Muslim can not be killed for committing blasphemy.[27] Other sources[who?] say his punishment must be a tazir (discretionary, can be arrest, caning, etc.).[28][29][failed verification]

Maliki – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy for Muslim men, and repentance is not accepted. For women, death is not the punishment suggested, but she is arrested and punished till she repents and returns to Islam or dies in custody.[30][31] A non-Muslim who commits blasphemy against Islam must be punished; however, the blasphemer can escape punishment by converting and becoming a devout Muslim.[32]
Hanbali – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy, for both Muslim men and women.[33][34]
Shafi’i – recognizes blasphemy as a separate offense from apostasy, but accepts the repentance of blasphemers. If the blasphemer does not repent, the punishment is death.[2][35]

Ja'fari (Shia) – views blasphemy against Islam, the Prophet, or any of the Imams, to be punishable with death, if the blasphemer is a Muslim.[36] In case the blasphemer is a non-Muslim, he is given a chance to convert to Islam, or else killed.[37]

Some jurists suggest that the sunnah in Sahih al-Bukhari, 3:45:687 and Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:369 provide a basis for a death sentence for the crime of blasphemy, even if someone claims not to be an apostate, but has committed the crime of blasphemy.[38] Some modern Muslim scholars contest that Islam supports blasphemy law, stating that Muslim jurists made the offense part of Sharia.[38][39]

The words of Ibn Abbas, a prominent jurist and companion of Muhammad, are frequently cited to justify the death penalty as punishment blasphemy:[6]
Any Muslim who blasphemes against Allah or His Messenger or blasphemes against any one from amongst the Prophets is thereby guilty of rejecting the truth of the Messenger of God, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. This is apostasy (ridda) for which repentance is necessary; if he repents he is released; if not then he is killed. Likewise, if any other person [non-Muslim] who is protected under a covenant becomes hostile and blasphemes against Allah or any one of Allah's Prophet and openly professes this, he breaches his covenant, so kill him.

— Ibn Qayyim al Jawziya and Ata 1998, 4:379
In Islamic jurisprudence, Kitab al Hudud and Taz'ir cover punishment for blasphemous acts.[40][41]””

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy#:~:text=Death%20is%20mandatory%20in%20cases,repent%2C%20the%20punishment%20is%20death.

And here’s the what:

“A mob stormed a police station in Pakistan and killed a man suspected of blasphemy while he was in custody, in yet another incident of religion-linked violence in the country.
The victim, identified as Muhammad Waris, was dragged out of the police station in the Nankana Sahib city of eastern Pakistan by the mob, officials said on Saturday.
The man, in his twenties, was reportedly in police custody for desecrating the Quran, the Muslim holy book, according to police spokesperson Muhammad Waqas.
The mob stormed the police station, dragged Waris out, beat him to death and attempted to set his body on fire, Mr Waqas said. “Police could not resist them because a handful of officials were present in the police station,” he said.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/pakistan-mob-attacks-blasphemy-b2280638.html

It’s not a point. Moral philosophers and suchlike generally don’t “cloak themselves in the certainty that their aesthetic preference is the correct one” at all. They develop their arguments in articles and books, and debate them too with those of opposing views. What they don’t do though is to drag their opponents on to the street and beat them to death. That behaviour seems to solely the domain of the religious. 

Why do you suppose that is?   

Simply not true. Religions are full of “sure and certains”; science, philosophy etc are not. People may well “feel” they are right in both cases but only the former are certain of it – and so sometimes behave accordingly.   

And nor it seems that so many of your fellow believers do expect others to take it seriously – so seriously in fact that they’ll kill them for criticising their beliefs.

You’re making a category error here. “The current reasoning on this board” concerns the different levels of abstraction of decision-making. “Free” will may be illusory, but nonetheless at a experiential level you’re as capable of changing your mind as anyone else.   

It’s “reasonable” that you can “hold a belief in a particular supernatural entity being 'real' while being unable to demonstrate its existence to be fact” only inasmuch as you mean it’s reasonable for you to believe anything you like, but not that it’s a reasoned position to take. You might also by the way want to pay some attention to the behaviours of others who think the same beliefs are “reasonable” too, but behave despicably in their name.         

You precisely tied yourself in knots when you essayed your “it's a fact for me but not a real fact for you” incoherence, and my opinion about that was set out in the argument I gave you and that you haven’t rebutted.

Just as a coda by the way, that some people who believe as you do behave despicably because of those same beliefs isn’t an epistemic point about whether the beliefs are well-founded or not. They could be true (though fortunately there’s no reason to think that are) and be consequentially horrible nonetheless, but in your shoes that would at least give me pause I think with my “subjective fact but not an objective real fact” cognitive dissonance.     

"Bullshit" is not a valid argument. I have already corrected you and PD on the meaning of "supernatural". I don't intend to repeat myself.

Well done for providing quotes and evidence to support my point that individuals interpret religious texts differently so the issue is the individual's interpretation and the individual's level of certainty and willingness to commit violence rather than a problem with religion.

I have not tied myself in knots by holding a belief in a supernatural entity that I cannot demonstrate to be factual. The current thinking on this board is that you discover or become aware of your beliefs, which are a product of past inputs/ experiences/ nature/ nurture. Therefore it is reasonable that I hold a religious belief as a result of past inputs and experiences. This includes a belief that a supernatural entity/ concept exists that is not subject to natural laws and therefore is not within the scope of science to discover.

You seem confused - there was no suggestion that your beliefs cannot change so of course it is possible that people change their minds as a result of their brain having processed and interpreted new inputs and experiences. I changed my mind and went from lacking religious beliefs as an atheist to acquiring a religious belief that led me to becoming a Muslim. For the reasons explained to you already many times in this thread, my religious belief is a result of past inputs/ experiences etc etc. I don't intend to waste my time listing again to you the inputs and experiences that I am consciously aware of or can recall. Obviously I cannot list inputs and experiences that I am not consciously aware of, which may have caused a religious belief to form. If you have issues with your memory but still require a list of inputs and experiences from me, I suggest you do a search and read the thread and find out for yourself.

You may of course continue with your belief that I have tied myself in knots. Hopefully your certainty in your belief will not lead you to commit any acts of violence. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope - there is no indication that these phenomena exist. You seem confused. Supernatural is an adjective to describe concepts that are beyond natural laws. Science is only concerned with explaining phenomena that conform to natural laws, therefore science cannot be used to explain supernatural concepts. Religions on the other hand are more concerned with addressing some of the questions that are raised by humans about aesthetics and abstract notions such as morality, purpose and meaning e.g. why did the universe come into existence, what is the purpose of our existence, what gives meaning to our lives, is there something more than what we experience through natural laws, what actions are moral etc, which you presumably agree are concepts that science does not address.

I don't think that is right at all.

I don't think we describe philosophy or aesthetics or morality as supernatural at all. They don't sit outside of the laws of nature, hence are not supernatural.

[ProfessorDavey]

"Bullshit" is not a valid argument. I have already corrected you and PD on the meaning of "supernatural". I don't intend to repeat myself.

But your meaning is wrong as you seem to think that philosophy or aesthetics or ethics are 'supernatural' - they aren't.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't think that is right at all.

I don't think we describe philosophy or aesthetics or morality as supernatural at all. They don't sit outside of the laws of nature, hence are not supernatural.

I agree that any philosophy, aesthetics or morality that does not also include a concept of non-conformity to natural laws, would not be described as supernatural. Religion does include a non-conformity to natural laws, which is why the adjective supernatural is applied to religious concepts and beliefs such as gods, judgement and accountability after death etc

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But your meaning is wrong as you seem to think that philosophy or aesthetics or ethics are 'supernatural' - they aren't.

No I don't think that philosophy, aesthetics or ethics are supernatural unless they include a supernatural element such as all-powerful gods and judgement and accountability for actions after death, all of which are outside natural laws.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

"Bullshit" is not a valid argument. I have already corrected you and PD on the meaning of "supernatural". I don't intend to repeat myself.

“Bullshit” wasn’t the argument, it was just the preface to it and you haven’t corrected anyone – you just repeated the same mistake that had been corrected for you. If you want to have a private language as well as private facts though that’s matter for you.

Just out of interest though, how in your head would your personal definition of ‘supernatural” work in practice? If you think that everything is “supernatural” until and unless science explains it, when to your mind does it change from supernatural to natural? The “Eureka!” moment in the bath? When a scientist writes up his findings? When the paper is peer-reviewed? When it’s published? What? What happens too if the scientific theory (and note that word especially by the way in contrast with “holy" claims” of certainty) is falsified? For you does the phenomenon then jump back from being natural to being supernatural again?

What about hypotheses too – are they necessarily discussing “supernatural” phenomena too, or can we call them natural at that stage even though the explanations are more tentative than scientific theories?   

Can you see now the hall of mirrors world you inhabit when you just decide a word means something other than its standard wording – ie, simply “not natural”?   

Well done for providing quotes and evidence to support my point that individuals interpret religious texts differently so the issue is the individual's interpretation and the individual's level of certainty and willingness to commit violence rather than a problem with religion.

I didn’t. I actually told you the authority some people who share the same private “facts” that you have but insist they be taken seriously by others rely on to kill people who don’t agree with them. That doesn’t seem to bother you one jot, but I think it should.     

I have not tied myself in knots by holding a belief in a supernatural entity that I cannot demonstrate to be factual. The current thinking on this board is that you discover or become aware of your beliefs, which are a product of past inputs/ experiences/ nature/ nurture. Therefore it is reasonable that I hold a religious belief as a result of past inputs and experiences. This includes a belief that a supernatural entity/ concept exists that is not subject to natural laws and therefore is not within the scope of science to discover.

I just corrected you on that, but you’ve ignored the correction here. 

You seem confused –

That’s another irony meter in tiny pieces all over the floor…

…there was no suggestion that your beliefs cannot change so of course it is possible that people change their minds as a result of their brain having processed and interpreted new inputs and experiences. I changed my mind and went from lacking religious beliefs as an atheist to acquiring a religious belief that led me to becoming a Muslim. For the reasons explained to you already many times in this thread, my religious belief is a result of past inputs/ experiences etc etc. I don't intend to waste my time listing again to you the inputs and experiences that I am consciously aware of or can recall. Obviously I cannot list inputs and experiences that I am not consciously aware of, which may have caused a religious belief to form. If you have issues with your memory but still require a list of inputs and experiences from me, I suggest you do a search and read the thread and find out for yourself.

I have no interest in your “past inputs/ experiences etc etc”. I merely point out the logical tangle you get into when you try to square the circle of a “fact” that’s not a “real fact". I also pointed out the difference between “reasonable” (as in, it’s “reasonably” your right to believe anything you like) and “reasoned” (as in the notion of a private “fact” that has no reasoning to support that designation at all).       

You may of course continue with your belief that I have tied myself in knots.

It's a belief based on arguments, none of which you’ve rebutted.

Hopefully your certainty in your belief will not lead you to commit any acts of violence.

Straw manning me doesn’t get you out of the knot you’ve tied yourself in either. I’ve consistently said here that I’m not certain of anything – but also for that matter that I think no-one else should be either. I leave certainty to the religious, whose consequent behaviour compared with that of philosophers and academics I set out with examples and you just ignored.       

[ProfessorDavey]

No I don't think that philosophy, aesthetics or ethics are supernatural unless they include a supernatural element such as all-powerful gods and judgement and accountability for actions after death, all of which are outside natural laws.

But that doesn't seem to fit with your 'not explained by science' definition as you specifically suggested that these things 'are concepts that science does not address'.

So either your definition is wrong or your categorisation of philosophy, aesthetics or ethics is wrong.

And you describe me and BHS as confused.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I agree that any philosophy, aesthetics or morality that does not also include a concept of non-conformity to natural laws, would not be described as supernatural. Religion does include a non-conformity to natural laws, which is why the adjective supernatural is applied to religious concepts and beliefs such as gods, judgement and accountability after death etc

That’s not what you said though. What you said was:

“Supernatural is a description for something that is outside the various currently known rules and explanations of the natural world that science has come up with based on demonstrable evidence.” (Reply #45948)

Thus before, say, lightning was explained scientifically it would (according to you) have been a “supernatural” phenomenon rather than just an unexplained one. That “currently known” also means that any phenomena that are known to exist now but that don’t fall within “various currently known rules and explanations of the natural world that science has come up” must also be “supernatural” too, even though science may explain them tomorrow.

I don’t know whether that’s what you intended, but it’s what your personal definition of “supernatural” entails nonetheless.         

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree that any philosophy, aesthetics or morality that does not also include a concept of non-conformity to natural laws, would not be described as supernatural.

But a justification of a philosophy, aesthetics or morality through appeal to a supernatural entity (e.g. a god) does not make those philosophies, aesthetics or moralities supernatural - they remain within the realms of the natural. Otherwise you'd end up in the nonsense scenario that considering killing people to be wrong is both supernatural and natural at the same time. A belief in a morality that suggests that killing is wrong isn't supernatural even though for some people its justification is based on the concept of a supernatural being.

Religion does include a non-conformity to natural laws, which is why the adjective supernatural is applied to religious concepts and beliefs such as gods, judgement and accountability after death etc

Nope religions often appeal to claimed supernatural elements, that is not the same as non-conformity to natural laws - religions are no more supernatural than other philosophies, ethical codes etc. Religions conform to natural laws despite an appeal (completely unevidenced) to purported supernatural elements.

[ProfessorDavey]

Gabriella,

That’s not what you said though. What you said was:

“Supernatural is a description for something that is outside the various currently known rules and explanations of the natural world that science has come up with based on demonstrable evidence.” (Reply #45948)

Thus before, say, lightning was explained scientifically it would (according to you) have been a “supernatural” phenomenon rather than just an unexplained one. That “currently known” also means that any phenomena that are known to exist now but that don’t fall within “various currently known rules and explanations of the natural world that science has come up” must also be “supernatural” too, even though science may explain them tomorrow.

I don’t know whether that’s what you intended, but it’s what your personal definition of “supernatural” entails nonetheless.         

I think VG is actually Donald Rumsfeld in disguise.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

“Bullshit” wasn’t the argument, it was just the preface to it and you haven’t corrected anyone – you just repeated the same mistake that had been corrected for you. If you want to have a private language as well as private facts though that’s matter for you.

Just out of interest though, how in your head would your personal definition of ‘supernatural” work in practice? If you think that everything is “supernatural” until and unless science explains it, when to your mind does it change from supernatural to natural? The “Eureka!” moment in the bath? When a scientist writes up his findings? When the paper is peer-reviewed? When it’s published? What? What happens too if the scientific theory (and note that word especially by the way in contrast with “holy" claims” of certainty) is falsified? For you does the phenomenon then jump back from being natural to being supernatural again?

What about hypotheses too – are they necessarily discussing “supernatural” phenomena too, or can we call them natural at that stage even though the explanations are more tentative than scientific theories?   

Can you see now the hall of mirrors world you inhabit when you just decide a word means something other than its standard wording – ie, simply “not natural”?

haven't made a mistake. That you mistakenly label religious beliefs as "private facts" or a dictionary definition of supernatural as "private language" is not my problem.

I described certain religious concepts such as gods, judgment and accountability after death as supernatural because they cannot be explained by natural laws as they are outside the scope of natural laws. Feel free to compare this to phenomena that are within the scope of natural laws if you want, but I won't waste my time responding to your incorrect comparisons.

I didn’t. I actually told you the authority some people who share the same private “facts” that you have but insist they be taken seriously by others rely on to kill people who don’t agree with them. That doesn’t seem to bother you one jot, but I think it should.     

Thanks for confirming that the issue is individuals who kill people who don't share their beliefs rather than religion itself.

I just corrected you on that, but you’ve ignored the correction here. 

I have corrected you on your opinion - but you've just ignored the correction here.

I have no interest in your “past inputs/ experiences etc etc”. I merely point out the logical tangle you get into when you try to square the circle of a “fact” that’s not a “real fact". I also pointed out the difference between “reasonable” (as in, it’s “reasonably” your right to believe anything you like) and “reasoned” (as in the notion of a private “fact” that has no reasoning to support that designation at all).     

  You still seem confused. I have pointed out that your opinion that believing in the reality of something supernatural as opposed to believing it is fiction like Aesop's fables does not turn that belief into a fact or a "fact" or a "private fact". You are still welcome to believe your opinion is correct/ real/ a fact / a "fact" or a "private fact" though if you want.

It's a belief based on arguments, none of which you’ve rebutted.

You did not make an argument so there was nothing to rebut. You asserted that I had created  a new category of "fact" when I was describing a belief that cannot be tested by science. You then made a comparison to a planet's orbit, which can be tested by science.

Straw manning me doesn’t get you out of the knot you’ve tied yourself in either. I’ve consistently said here that I’m not certain of anything – but also for that matter that I think no-one else should be either. I leave certainty to the religious, whose consequent behaviour compared with that of philosophers and academics I set out with examples and you just ignored.     

See above - you seem to really, really believe that I have tied myself in a knot, and that's fine provided your certainty of belief does not cause you to commit an act of violence. Also, I agree with you that you have the right to hold such a belief, even if I think it's an idiotic belief to hold.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But a justification of a philosophy, aesthetics or morality through appeal to a supernatural entity (e.g. a god) does not make those philosophies, aesthetics or moralities supernatural - they remain within the realms of the natural. Otherwise you'd end up in the nonsense scenario that considering killing people to be wrong is both supernatural and natural at the same time. A belief in a morality that suggests that killing is wrong isn't supernatural even though for some people its justification is based on the concept of a supernatural being.

Agree that a philosophy or belief is not supernatural.

The supernatural elements or examples I referred to was phenomena such as gods or their judgement of individuals after their death - these are outside natural laws, as natural laws and science address and have methods to test for what happens to the body and organs after death but cannot test in relation to whether any spiritual beliefs are factual e.g. spiritual consequences after we die. There are no scientific methods to test for spiritual concepts or beliefs. Even if you gave scientists more time, what method will they use to test beliefs about spiritual phenomena in order to decide if they are facts? Scientists would consider this to be outside the scope of science, which is concerned only with looking into natural phenomena i.e. phenomena that conform to natural laws.

Nope religions often appeal to claimed supernatural elements, that is not the same as non-conformity to natural laws - religions are no more supernatural than other philosophies, ethical codes etc. Religions conform to natural laws despite an appeal (completely unevidenced) to purported supernatural elements.

Not sure where you thought I said religions are supernatural. Can you quote the bit you are referring to in my post to clarify what you mean? I said supernatural is used to describe phenomena that science cannot explain i.e it is not within the remit of science, and I gave examples of these phenomena within religious beliefs such as gods, or their judgements of an individual's morality after their deaths, a spiritual judgement.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

That’s not what you said though. What you said was:

“Supernatural is a description for something that is outside the various currently known rules and explanations of the natural world that science has come up with based on demonstrable evidence.” (Reply #45948)

Thus before, say, lightning was explained scientifically it would (according to you) have been a “supernatural” phenomenon rather than just an unexplained one. That “currently known” also means that any phenomena that are known to exist now but that don’t fall within “various currently known rules and explanations of the natural world that science has come up” must also be “supernatural” too, even though science may explain them tomorrow.

I don’t know whether that’s what you intended, but it’s what your personal definition of “supernatural” entails nonetheless.         

I said "supernatural" describes things that are outside of science. I did not say "supernatural" describes things that are unexplained by science. How would the scientific method be used to test for whether supernatural phenomena are factual or come up with an explanation for them?

[ProfessorDavey]

Not sure where you thought I said religions are supernatural. Can you quote the bit you are referring to in my post to clarify what you mean?

You said that:

'Religion does include a non-conformity to natural laws ...'

I thought that non-conformity to natural laws was the (or a) definition of supernatural. Therefore my understanding of your words was that you considered religion to be supernatural.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You said that:

'Religion does include a non-conformity to natural laws ...'

I thought that non-conformity to natural laws was the (or a) definition of supernatural. Therefore my understanding of your words was that you considered religion to be supernatural.

In #45958 the full quote of what I said should be "Religion does include a non-conformity to natural laws, which is why the adjective supernatural is applied to religious concepts and beliefs such as gods, judgement and accountability after death etc"

I specifically said "supernatural" is a description applied to religious concepts, and gave some examples of these concepts. I have not said that religions are supernatural.

[ProfessorDavey]

In #45958 the full quote of what I said should be "Religion does include a non-conformity to natural laws, which is why the adjective supernatural is applied to religious concepts and beliefs such as gods, judgement and accountability after death etc"

You do understand what a comma signifies in a sentence. Quoting the whole sentence does not change that fact that the part before the comma clearly makes a statement that 'Religion does include a non-conformity to natural laws', which is, I thought, the definition of supernatural. The bit after the comma is dependent on the statement before the comma.

I specifically said "supernatural" is a description applied to religious concepts, and gave some examples of these concepts. I have not said that religions are supernatural.

But you describe religion as including non-conformity to natural law (i.e. supernatural).

So perhaps you would explain how something that has non-conformity to natural law isn't supernatural.

[Spud]

Spud,

No, they agree with each other (though not always - Dicky Underpants is your man for expertise on that) but they do not constitute independent reports of the same event. There's a big difference. 

They do no such thing. What they "confirm" to varying degrees is some people's beliefs about that, not the fact of it.

We don't have witness accounts but claims written down after the event by unknown authors who appear to have used common sources for their accounts.

Maeght and Bluehillside,

Within the four gospels there are indeed independent reports of the same events. For example:

Luke and Mark tell us that the ruler whose daughter Jesus raised was called Jairus. Luke and Mark could not have got this detail from Matthew, who refers to him as 'a certain ruler'. They must have another source. Matthew tells us that there were flute players among the mourners, but he could not have got this detail from Luke or Mark, who do not mention them. So Matthew must have had another source.

All four gospels report Jesus feeding the 5000, John includes details that he could not have known from Matthew, Mark or Luke. The detail in the Synoptics is the same as in John, but worded in a way that indicates an independent source. For example, 'the disciples' in the Synoptics, where John names individual disciples.

John could not have got his information about the morning of the resurrection from the Synoptic gospels (like running to the tomb with Peter), neither could the Synoptics have got their information about the angel's message to the women from John.

In the transfiguration accounts, Luke and Matthew are similar in content and order of that content, but with a few variations. Luke (but not Matthew or Mark) tells us that Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus "about his departure". Matthew and Mark (but not Luke) tell us that as they came down from the mountain, the disciples asked Jesus, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" in response to being instructed to say nothing about what happened. These two details had to be from independent sources.

[ekim]

So perhaps you would explain how something that has non-conformity to natural law isn't supernatural.

I think she is saying that there are elements of the supernatural in religious literature as well as the natural rather than religion is supernatural e.g. Death (natural) resurrection (supernatural), physical presence on Earth (natural), spiritual presence in Heaven (supernatural).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You do understand what a comma signifies in a sentence. Quoting the whole sentence does not change that fact that the part before the comma clearly makes a statement that 'Religion does include a non-conformity to natural laws', which is, I thought, the definition of supernatural. The bit after the comma is dependent on the statement before the comma.
But you describe religion as including non-conformity to natural law (i.e. supernatural).

So perhaps you would explain how something that has non-conformity to natural law isn't supernatural.

Yes, a comma followed by the word "which" acts to modify or give detail about the noun before the comma. Hence, the bit after the comma in my sentence that you didn't quote i.e. "which is why the adjective supernatural is applied to religious concepts and beliefs such as gods, judgement and accountability after death etc" clarifies and gives examples of the parts of religion that can be described as supernatural.

The word "include" in my sentence means religion has parts of it that does not conform to natural laws. The bit after the comma explains or gives more detail about the parts of religion that could be described as not conforming to natural laws and could therefore be described as supernatural.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think she is saying that there are elements of the supernatural in religious literature as well as the natural rather than religion is supernatural e.g. Death (natural) resurrection (supernatural), physical presence on Earth (natural), spiritual presence in Heaven (supernatural).

Hi Enki - yes that is what I was trying to convey, that religion contains elements or parts that refer to the supernatural. Thank you. Glad you understood what I meant.