Why does atheism so often include skepticism ...

[floppit]

Instead of supernatural, could it be explained by a rent in the space-time continuum?
For example, my MiL, when walking to work one morning, said she saw someone running towards her, the slowed down right by her and appeared to climb over an invisible wall or fence. Further investigation showed there had been fields and a public footpath in that area decades ago, and there had been a style in that very spot.
Why would a ghost jump over a style? If there was some sort of disturbance in the space-time continuum, maybe that was a little snap-shot of history replaying?

I myself, have seen the silhoette of someone sitting in the cockpit of a de-commisioned aircraft when I know full well there was no one else around.
I put it down to a piece of history replaying itself.

I have now explained the unexplained.

What's wrong with boring imagination? I imagined a sign for British Gas once - it was Argos but I saw British Gas, I was late for an interview and looking for BG to follow directions. If I went back through piles of history BG may have once been there, in fact if I did that every time my perception is human rather than mechanical I'm sure I'd find historical connections just by chance. After all, ask any magician, our perception is almost always subjective to some extent so there'd be a fair pile to go at!

I guess that's why measuring things, being methodical, careful, repeating experiments, seeking consistency, using placebos in drugs trials, being cautious are all so important. It's not the opinion that ultimately bears weight, it's the means by which the opinion is arrived at which gives it weight.

BTW - String Theory is becoming increasingly unpopular - not that I understand it but I read science commentary and it's safe to say it's in decline.

[Elessarina]

It's possible, I guess, but I don't think I buy "interference from other dimensions" as an explanation for ghosts.

I didn't mean it as an explanation for "ghosts" just a possible explanation for something we would perhaps now don't understand.

If other dimensions could interfere with the ones we can perceive sufficiently to cause the materialisation of solid looking objects, you'd think that a) such things would happen more often and b) the phenomena would be replicable in the lab. IMO, such things come from the brain.

Why should it happen more often?

Why should it be replicable in a lab.. can you create a star in a lab? And again as I have tried to point out.. if it is something we don't yet have the knowledge to understand how can it be replicable in a lab?

As for the OP - I don't think it should be a surprise that atheism and skepticism go together. Atheists, generally speaking, seem to be more drawn to science than the "average" of the population, and science is organised skepticism (null hypothesis and all that)

I don't have a problem with skepticism as I am a skeptic myself.. I think it's more the all knowing attitude that certain things are impossible as though that goes hand and hand with atheism. I don't believe there is a God but I cannot say for certain that there is definitely no God that would imply I knew everything there is to know about every part of the universe.

[Clinton Huxley]

If other dimensions could interfere with the ones we can perceive sufficiently to cause the materialisation of solid looking objects, you'd think that a) such things would happen more often and b) the phenomena would be replicable in the lab. IMO, such things come from the brain.

Why should it happen more often?

Well, a manifestation of a ghost, fully formed and walking about seems a large scale phenomenon to me, I'd expect ever more small scale phenomena

Why should it be replicable in a lab.. can you create a star in a lab? And again as I have tried to point out.. if it is something we don't yet have the knowledge to understand how can it be replicable in a lab?

Well, we can create a star in a lab (nearly). That's what a fusion reactor is. As for being replicable in a lab, what I mean is, something like a ghost interacts with our eyes, we see it, that means, if it is external to our consciousness it must be material. If it is material, it should be measurable by some scientific instrument.

[Clinton Huxley]

BTW - String Theory is becoming increasingly unpopular - not that I understand it but I read science commentary and it's safe to say it's in decline.

Still has its enthusiastic supporters, Michio Kaku in particular. I don't know much about it but it does seem to come in a lot of different flavours, 11 dimensions, 16 dimensions, 23 dimensions etc etc etc, which makes me think something is not quite right with it.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Instead of supernatural, could it be explained by a rent in the space-time continuum?
For example, my MiL, when walking to work one morning, said she saw someone running towards her, the slowed down right by her and appeared to climb over an invisible wall or fence. Further investigation showed there had been fields and a public footpath in that area decades ago, and there had been a style in that very spot.
Why would a ghost jump over a style? If there was some sort of disturbance in the space-time continuum, maybe that was a little snap-shot of history replaying?

I myself, have seen the silhoette of someone sitting in the cockpit of a de-commisioned aircraft when I know full well there was no one else around.
I put it down to a piece of history replaying itself.

I have now explained the unexplained.

Well there you go, you see I was scared to say anything like that in case Ani just launched...

But yes.. tears in space time, interference from other dimensions.. etc etc

But again, apply Occam's razor. Given that there are plenty of perfectly plausible explanations for these events that don't require us to explore outside the realms of know physical laws, the burden is very much on those who suggest such things as "disturbances in the space-time continuum" to back-up their hypothesis with something much more substantial. Otherwise we must give preference to explanations more grounded in current knowledge, even if we don't yet have conclusive proof which explanation so far suggested (if any) is correct.


It's not about denying the possibility that there may be bizarre as-yet-unknown physical phenomenon affecting the world around us. It's just about acknowledging that such things as unexplained visions do not even remotely constitute good enough reason to suggest there are. Not by a very, very long way.

Anyway, if there are new branches of physics to be discovered, don't you think evidence for them is more likely to be detected by highly calibrated instruments working in a tightly controlled environment somewhere like the LHC, rather than poor quality instruments (such as the human eye), attached to even worse quality, and highly biased data processors (such as the human brain), working in the extreamly uncontrolled environment of "some spooky field"?

[floppit]

But again, apply Occam's razor. Given that there are plenty of perfectly plausible explanations for these events that don't require us to explore outside the realms of know physical laws, the burden is very much on those who suggest such things as "disturbances in the space-time continuum" to back-up their hypothesis with something much more substantial. Otherwise we must give preference to explanations more grounded in current knowledge, even if we don't yet have conclusive proof which explanation so far suggested (if any) is correct.


It's not about denying the possibility that there may be bizarre as-yet-unknown physical phenomenon affecting the world around us. It's just about acknowledging that such things as unexplained visions do not even remotely constitute good enough reason to suggest there are. Not by a very, very long way.

Anyway, if there are new branches of physics to be discovered, don't you think evidence for them is more likely to be detected by highly calibrated instruments working in a tightly controlled environment somewhere like the LHC, rather than poor quality instruments (such as the human eye), attached to even worse quality, and highly biased data processors (such as the human brain), working in the extreamly uncontrolled environment of "some spooky field"?

^^^ That!

[Elessarina]

Well, a manifestation of a ghost, fully formed and walking about seems a large scale phenomenon to me, I'd expect ever more small scale phenomena

I didn't mention ghosts walking around or anything similar.

And again why would you expect more small-scale phenomena? What is that based on? Does something have to be common to be real?

Well, we can create a star in a lab (nearly). .

How nearly is nearly?

That's what a fusion reactor is. .

Thanks for that..but that isn't a star is it? and besides which we couldn't do that 5 thousand years ago though could we?, or 3,000, or 2,000, or 1,000 or 500 year or 200 year ago.

As for being replicable in a lab, what I mean is, something like a ghost interacts with our eyes, we see it, that means, if it is external to our consciousness it must be material. If it is material, it should be measurable by some scientific instrument .

Why do you keep mentioning "ghosts"?

Just because something is external to our consciousness does not mean that it should be necessarily detectable by us by scientific means. Maybe we don't have the technology or knowledge yet... you are making a judgement based on our current abilities.

I have in my hand a device that allows me to talk to someone on the other side of the world.. do you think someone 2,000, 1,000, 500, 200, 100 years ago would have believed that possible?

[Elessarina]

It's not about denying the possibility that there may be bizarre as-yet-unknown physical phenomenon affecting the world around us. It's just about acknowledging that such things as unexplained visions do not even remotely constitute good enough reason to suggest there are. Not by a very, very long way.

This is exactly what I was worried about with starting this thread. I did not mention anything like unexplained visiions and that was never what I wanted to talk about. now everyone on this forum is going to be thinking I see dead people, visions, hallucinations and so forth.

I don't necessarily think that a lot of phenonmena are occuring or anything unexplainable is happening, I have not experienced anything myself other than something once that could be a 100 billion to one coincidence.

Anyway, if there are new branches of physics to be discovered, don't you think evidence for them is more likely to be detected by highly calibrated instruments working in a tightly controlled environment somewhere like the LHC
Christ almighty I am really sorry I started this damn thread. Of course.. I am not sitting at home with a crystal ball trying to recreate the big bang.

rather than poor quality instruments (such as the human eye), attached to even worse quality, and highly biased data processors (such as the human brain), working in the extreamly uncontrolled environment of "some spooky field"? ,

Your brain is all you ever have to go on in the world, if you think it is so unrealiable then how can you be sure of anything.


Anyway can one of the mods please delete this thread?

[Clinton Huxley]

Well, a manifestation of a ghost, fully formed and walking about seems a large scale phenomenon to me, I'd expect ever more small scale phenomena

I didn't mention ghosts walking around or anything similar.

And again why would you expect more small-scale phenomena? What is that based on? Does something have to be common to be real?

Agree the ghost is a bit of a red herring but serves to illustrate a point. I would expect to see lots of things, smaller than ghosts, and not just people but objects, sounds, smells, lights, bits of cheese etc etc if other dimensions were interfering with us. Not Henry VIII or a Roman Centurion. If extra dimensions can interact with ours, I would expect it to occur more often.

Well, we can create a star in a lab (nearly). .

How nearly is nearly?

Well, within 50 years, probably.

That's what a fusion reactor is. .

Thanks for that..but that isn't a star is it? and besides which we couldn't do that 5 thousand years ago though could we?, or 3,000, or 2,000, or 1,000 or 500 year or 200 year ago.

It’s the same physics, essentially. It does not involve any unknown processes. The remaining problems are just engineering.

Just because something is external to our consciousness does not mean that it should be necessarily detectable by us by scientific means. Maybe we don't have the technology or knowledge yet... you are making a judgement based on our current abilities.

Correct. BUT if the phenomenon can be detected by the human senses, it MUST be detectable by scientific instruments, given that our senses operate solely within the arena of normal physics. For a phenomenon to have an effect on the world we see, it must be able to interact with matter. If it interacts with matter, it must be detectable.

[Sisifo]

Supernatural events, by its own definition, are "out" of the laws of physics that rationalists hold as the rules by everything in the universe exists. To say that something is outside those laws is the cause of skepticism for any rationalist. There is only one way open, which is the assumption that there might be laws of physics not yet known that govern those events. That would water the mouth of scientists and skeptics, because they are generally moved by an eager to know and discover. But the impredictability of those events create, at least, a sensation of wasting the time. If you add the gargantuan amount of "proofs" and stories that have finally been unveiled as fake, a think it is only natural to be skeptic.
But the amazing nature of science is that it admits that it cannot prove "non existence", and there are still many rationalists and scientist who spend some of their time and their work in that riddle. That would not be really an absolute skepticism; rather a "most likely not."
That is my personal posture, too. An "I don't think so", that I would easily change if I could witness a repeated phenomenon -every night in that spot "that" happens"- whether science could explain it or not.

[Drewish]

So nobody else here is an atheist just to be a dick to religious people? I am so alone...












Just kidding

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Your brain is all you ever have to go on in the world, if you think it is so unrealiable then how can you be sure of anything...

That's what things like the scientific method are for - to compensate for our brain's biases.

[Drewish]

...Your brain is all you ever have to go on in the world, if you think it is so unrealiable then how can you be sure of anything...

That's what things like the scientific method are for - to compensate for our brain's biases.

Yes, but because scientific reporting doesn't always separate correlation and causation effectively and we as individuals can not replicate all scientific experiments on our own, some deference to authority is necessary to include scientific studies in your world view.

[Elessarina]

Can someone please delete this thread?

[Clinton Huxley]

Can someone please delete this thread?

Most interesting thread of the day. I vote we keep it