When I was young, about 8 or 9, I was frightened of creatures that invaded my bedroom in the dark: monsters under the bed, devils in human form lurking in the shadows, that kind of thing. One night when I couldn’t sleep through fear, it came to me that if these creatures were real then so too were the super-heroes I loved: Superman, Batman and the Legion of Super-Heroes! Now, I knew these DC characters didn’t really exist and so I reasoned (I think pretty well for a 9 year old!) that that neither did their evil counterparts, the monsters and devils I was scared of. With this realisation, the horrors were vanquished. Shadows were just shadows. There was nothing scary under the bed.
Somewhere in a recent comment, either here or elsewhere (I can’t remember which nor can I find it), someone informed me that I make the a priori assumption that the supernatural isn’t real.
The term a priori is used with abandon by people who don’t necessarily know what it means so here’s how The Oxford English dictionary defines it:
relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.
I’ll take that. The only way one can assess the supernatural is through reasoning and deduction. There’s no independent evidence for it that can be considered; no external phenomenon to observe and analyse; no science, history or philosophy books that take it seriously or even consider it. I have no personal experience of the beings that supposedly inhabit the supernatural realm; no gods, angels, spirits, demons, ghosts or goblins have manifested themselves in front of me. I’ve never experienced magic, spells or exorcisms, at least not ones that can’t be explained far more convincingly in other ways. So what does that leave in terms of evidence?
Fantasy stories and religious texts. These are the only sources of information about the supernatural, and at least one of them is entirely fictional. Fantasy stories are by definition fiction. They are made up. Similarly, religious works are the products of minds from before the advent of science; explanations of the world and human experience that their creators could construct only in terms of their localised, pre-scientific superstitions. No-one outside of those who’ve chosen to believe in them takes them seriously, which is why their claims are never considered in serious science or history books (Ken Ham’s ‘scientific’ publications are nothing of the sort; they’re religious texts masquerading as science.)
That the supernatural has to be argued for, from an assumption that it does exist, is clear indication it does not; such powerful beings would surely be apparent in the real world, just as they are in Stranger Things (a fiction in case you’re not sure.) No-one has so far demonstrated that the supernatural is real. It is possible to argue it is but only through reliance on the same religious texts, the authority and reliability of which is in dispute on such matters
So, do I make an a priori assumption the supernatural doesn’t exist? Yes, in the sense I take it a priori that it doesn’t. Is this an assumption? No, it is a conclusion arrived at through an assessment of the evidence – there isn’t any: consideration of accounts of the supernatural reveals they’re fictional or prescientific, while personal experience of the apparently supernatural is better explained by rational means. I don’t therefore assume the supernatural doesn’t exist, I deduce it does not.
Actually, I did this when I was 8 or 9.
rejectingjesus, 
What is “supernatural” and where does this reasoning we’ve come to end? Which level of magnification is the correct one?
As our instruments and theories improve we know there are more things we don’t see than we do. There are multiple fields and undetectable vibrations all made of the same 4 basic subatomic particles—the same building blocks making things into things that aren’t really things, or nouns, but out of the evidence they leave behind we can trace markers that they actually exist, even though they are not really things, but actions or vibrations that arise out of the field, that only when observed they become physical, as denoted in the 2022 novel prize in physics.
Logic is a closed system that uses logic to prove itself, circular reasoning in fact that is just as redundant as religious reasoning. It is based on assumptions (axioms, or miracles) that IF true, can explain matter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Right, (when and where) does natural become super? Unseen, are our thoughts supernatural? Maybe the “God” idea is logical because we are gods of our own worlds. Perhaps God is a part of our individualities, our spirits. For me personally, I’m drawn towards the idea of ‘God with us.’ It is surely a popular topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liked, except for this: Logic is a closed system that uses logic to prove itself, circular reasoning in fact that is just as redundant as religious reasoning.
Logic, like other mathematical or scientific models, describes something about our world. And like them, Logic can be falsified – making it scientific as fuck.
If you find a case where 4 apples plus 3 apples equals 42 apples, you’ve disproven some basic axioms of math.
The same holds true for the Law of Identity, the Law of Excluded Middle, the Law of Non-Contradiction, etc. – if you find an example where one or more don’t hold, you’ve falsified logic.
Logic, math, and our scientific laws hold because they are falsifiable, but have not (yet) been falsified. Indeed, some scientific ideas have fallen as have proposed mathematical models.
No, logic isn’t in anyway like the gods we’ve created. Gods tend to be unfalsifiable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I sort of agree with you, but I would say the idea of deity is close to becoming falsifiable as well, as we begin to understand that the nature of reality doesn’t appear to be so real after all. Under the current trajectory we would come to the conclusion that we too are apparitions, every bit as much so as the metaphysical, ie, a particle is an excitation in a quantum field that arises from nothing (no-thing) when observed. Actually sounds very Hindu, or Catholic, but really all the ancient traditions touch on this premise with no axioms needed.
All of our current theories are based on a granted assumption of materialism where matter is the primordial. That is turning into a very tall tale. And logic, in the spirit of this post, is based on scientific circular reasoning.
LikeLike
*Niel, not Ben.
LikeLike
A good example of a what a universe would look like where the supernatural actually exists is the TV show Supernatural. On that show, all that stuff clearly exists, and is testable. They have a problem entity? Hit it with cold iron – if that doesn’t work it’s not a ghost. Try silver, if that doesn’t work it’s not a werewolf. And so forth. It can all be investigated and understood. But that is clearly not the universe that we live in. If your flight of fancy defies being investigated, there’s no reason to take it seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like this: That the supernatural has to be argued for, from an assumption that it does exist, is clear indication it does not.
LikeLiked by 2 people