5mo ago

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

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

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

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

279 comments

I try to keep my thinking in line with scientific materialism. That also means things I believe need to be falsifiable, which means, I don't entirely believe them. There there always needs to be a bit of a hole or escape hatch in any truth to prevent it from becoming dogma.
I don't "believe" what I'm about to say, but it's something that has come up for me many times under psychedelics, which is the concept of a 'consciousness first' manifestation of reality. It's the closest thing I have to a spiritual or supernatural belief, and it's not really a belief because I don't believe it, but I do entertain the idea from time to time. The basic argument is that we've got the order of operations backwards, that the universe doesn't manifest consciousness through emergent properties, but rather that consciousness manifests universe concepts and scenarios that end up being plausible. This concepts extends the concept of consciousness to all matter and energy as well, because it all ends up being one and the same. I think of it as an extension of some Taoist thinking around wei wu wei where, because one is aught to find what they are looking for, if we can step back and stop dictating what we think/demand reality to be, reality may actually be much more fluid if we aren't so dogmatic in our thinking about it.
Anyways, I don't really believe any of that. But I think it would make for good science fiction, although it's already been done extremely well by Le Guin in her novella The Lathe of Heaven.
- That also means things I believe need to be falsifiable
  It's possible to have real science without it being falsifiable in the Popperian sense. For example, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, medicine (unless your sense of ethics would even shame a Nazi).
  Popper's goal was to discredit soft sciences like sociology because he was an extreme conservative who didn't like the findings that people like Horkheimer and Adorno were coming up with.
  As for psychedelics, one part of the mind that's affected by psychedelics is the part that tells you what's important and meaningful. What you're being shown is the subjectivity and emptiness of that sense of awe.
  
  I'm on the page of discrediting soft-sciences. Because they are not rigid and testable, they are filled to the brim with what are essentially witch-doctors who read the tea leaves so-to-speak. Social sciences especially. They are a pseudo-science that has infected the minds of many.
  
  I have to defend archaeology here because that is not true in the modern discipline whether or not you want to call it a true science. Modern archaeologists are (generally) very meticulous with their findings and very reluctant to come up with conclusions that sound like anything near objective truths because they are more aware than anyone that it is fragmentary information about the past which we have to come up with conclusions to and basing them on our own modern biases.
  Modern archaeology has also (again, generally) embraced the idea that archaeology is inherently destructive, so studying sites in on-invasive ways with actual scientific tools like magnetometry and ground-penetrating radar is very popular and requires someone with actual grounded training in geophysics to do properly. Even basic GIS mapping requires scientific instruction in order to do it properly and GIS is a primary tool of archaeologists now.
  I'm not an archaeologist, just a very keen amateur enthusiast who wishes less of it didn't go over his head.
  
  I wouldn't group Archaeology in with humanities or soft-sciences. They are using rigorous methodologies for their findings, and they kind of take from multiple fields in that regard. Radiocarbon dating for example; sure it doesn't give us exact answers, but it gives a repeatable, testable result.

279 comments