What would it take to convince you of magic / supernatural?

[pinball1970]

Missing the point. Trying to tinker with models and tech - these will do (within the pre-set frame of the topic/post) something, of course, but they do that something if/because they comply with ' natural' and not the other way. 'Natural' always has the imperative, so whatever actually happens is natural thing to happen.
If 'natural' breaks our models - well, poor little us.
If by any chance 'magic' really happens, then 'magic' is natural.

Of course on this line of thought, 'supernatural' to happen is not any better than the good old 'this sentence is a lie'.

Ok before we stray into incompleteness theorem I think what you are saying is, if it happens then it's natural.
I agree I think there is only nature

 

[256bits]

A psychosis can surely help to experience magical/supernatural things.

Yes but that was not the point of the thread.

Assuming of course every individual is a rational being.
That is surely not the case.
Humans are the most irrational in decisions and behavior, beliefs...
David statement outlines whether or not an event could be construed as being 'supernatural' by any particular individual based upon their experiences, their beliefs, their education, ...
The OP states

What would it take to convince you of magic / supernatural​

Assuming "You" could be any random person, the chances that they could discern magical from reality if they witness something new and exciting, and logically be convinced it is one or the other, either by themselves or by others, to change their mind seems fruitless, and/or pointless, in many situations. Their experience is their experience. To tell them what they witnessed is not what it is - they are actually being told that they are crazy and deficient somewhere in there mental capacity - same as what David brought up. Anecdotal, with non-repeatable evidence, is a problem for investigators of these one-off experiences cited as being of the supernatural

I think @mfb had they correct response to the matter in post 80.
Can Dark matter/Dark energy be magic since we do not at this point in time have a physical explanation. Right now it is magic for scientists ( and general population, at least those that know and worry about it ). Perhaps, maybe, later some solution may be found. Later being unknown.

Scientists deal with magic all the time by trying to come up with an explanation for things happening in this world and universe. Students deal with magic the first day of class and are taught that no, it is is not magic, there is a complete physical explanation through the known physical laws of particular happenings. And they learn more and more happenings, as they progress through education, that physical explanations are widespread, but there is much more to learn.

Still, 13 is believed to be an unlucky number.
Does anyone want to live at address 666.
Irrationality.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Science doesn't really work in a way that would give 'magic' writ large a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. What would more likely happen is that an individual 'magical' phenomenon would be observed that can't be explained using current scientific knowledge (walking on water, shooting lasers from your eyes, whatever), and then scientific investigation would take place. Whether the investigation is ultimately able to explain the phenomenon within some sort of theoretical framework that ties in with the rest of our knowledge of the universe is irrelevant: at some point, if the evidence were robust enough, the phenomenon would simply be accepted as happening.

But this happens anyway all the time and we don't attribute it to magic. We have no idea why lots of things with good documentation happen (the solar coronal heating problem jumps to mind). We continue to investigate them, even though there's no guarantee we'll be able to explain them to our satisfaction. So I really don't see how we would simply say "well, magic exists" in one case and not in another. Especially if the magic seemed to follow some sort of logical system (like you often see in books that use magic as a plot device).

I suppose if lots and lots of well-documented, non-replicable macroscopic 2nd law violations started happening completely randomly, we'd have to deeply rethink basic assumptions at the heart of the philosophy of science (the problem of induction jumps to mind).

As an aside, I tend to agree with the folks who are arguing that 'supernatural' as a term is self-inconsistent. If 'natural' encompasses everything existing or possible in nature, then there's nothing left in nature for the supernatural. The only way you could declare something supernatural is if you have the arrogance to believe that you know the laws of nature perfectly and can spot a violation thereof.

 

[AlexCaledin]

- that's just a personal choice - if your beloved one is badly sick, you can pray hard, or you can simply say "it's natural".

 

[kyphysics]

You mean all those well-documented cases of amputated limbs regrowing, or situations where a disease perhaps was misdiagnosed or where spontaneous remissions are possible?

But the thought of a God who arbitrarily heals a few as sort of a tease to the countless others who suffer and die (perhaps as a result of volume of the petitions of others) seems monsterous to me

Regrowing of body parts is certainly a more rare occurrence, but there are cases (some better medically documented than others) that may qualify.

I shall post some examples when I have time to look them up (I know "where" they are, but have to "dig" through a lot to get to them and don't want to spend the time right this moment). In general, it's a strong criticism, because one can argue "miracles" of other sorts are just, as you say, misdiagnoses or spontaneous remissions. A completely regrown body part (or even a significantly regrown one) would seem to have less of a natural cause (putting aside someone arguing it was alien or super advanced technology that we don't know of).

Nonetheless, I think even certain non-regrowing healings/"miracles" can be at least compelling and interesting if the timing occurs instantly (or within a very short time-frame) after prayer (which there are many cases of).

I'm not sure how much of a theological discussion would be allowed here, but I don't find there to be any moral inconsistency between God healing some, but not all who pray for healing miracles. The latter would potentially turn God into a "vending machine" (doing whatever we asked for) and obviate the need for surgeons, personal responsibility, and perhaps the opportunity for moral growth or spiritual maturity in human agents. At a bare minimum, we shouldn't expect God to always heal us when the cause of illness is by another human agent (maybe even ourselves). Moral significance only happens in a world with real consequences (e.g., the decision to pick up a gun and shoot someone out of anger, for example). A more difficult case is understanding suffering that is not man-made, but a result of nature. It's probably one of - if not the top - argument against God's existence in the field of philosophy. But, it's logically flawed (even if emotionally moving), as no one has ever shown that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for allowing "natural evil" (as it's called in philosophy) to occur.

 

[kyphysics]

Faith healing lacks repeatability and causality. It is squarely in the realm of pseudoscience and one of the few remaining specific examples of Sagan's "Demon Haunted" thesis.

This thread can't be a "debunk this pseudoscience" thread. And any way, there are much better examples available in fictional media (Harry Potter was cited previously) to test the logic.

Science is not necessarily the tool to investigate the supernatural (if it exists).

You're also right that many faith healings would not be repeatable - often, among other reasons, because it would seem immoral to do so (e.g., reinjuring someone to see if a supernatural agent may heal them again). However, reasonable belief in the supernatural does not rest on whether or not science can prove it to exist. It's not really a question of science and that's okay. There are many things about the world that science cannot prove, but that we're rational to believe things about:

ethics (Is rape wrong?)
metaphysics (Am I a brain in a vat being stimulated by a mad scientist?)
aesthetics (questions of beauty)

Heck, even science itself cannot be justified using the scientific method - a position regularly accepted in philosophy of science and epistemology. This is usually understood in two broad ways:

i.) The scientific method itself cannot be proven by the scientific method. Science assumes that the world is governed by timeless laws. But it suffers from a well-known problem of induction. Just because the world is the way it is at the time we investigate and measure it, that does not mean it is always like that. Some scientific phenomenon might give a value of x every time we observe or test it. We can repeat our experiment hundreds, thousands, or even millions of times to obtain the same result. But, what if the world is ordered such that some time in the future and on the billionth try (which we haven't completed yet), the value shifts to y? We could simply be observing a sequence that governs the world, which has not yet shifted. There is no way to know that and this is a classic problem in induction. Yet, science assumes a timeless, consistent patterning of things that we bake into our laws.

ii.) Science is littered with all sorts of assumptions (used to do it), which cannot be proven by science itself - instead, these are taken on "faith." Take, for example, the constancy of the speed of light on a one-way path (only the round trip velocity can be measured), which is assumed to be true by science, but not scientifically verified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

If science is not the best tool for investigating the potentially supernatural, then what is? I think philosophical argumentation, which can be at times supported by scientific facts/findings in the premises, is the main route and what's been done since the foundation of the field a couple thousand years ago.

Probably the most relevant work on miracles (a form of supernaturalism) in the field of philosophy in recent times has been John Earman's*** (University of Pittsburgh), Hume's Abject Failure (2000). He shows where Hume went wrong and introduces the relevant probability calculus for evaluating claims of miracles.

***Earman's not a theist - he's an agnostic.

 

[DennisN]

I'm no expert in neither theology (certainly not!) nor psychology, but I see some similarities between praying/faith healing and affirmations.

 

[kyphysics]

My wife posed a theoretical similar to this last night while watching the show Supernatural. I also was thinking about the concept that technology that is sufficiently advanced becomes indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke's famous quote referenced there is definitely a powerful thought. I think one rejoinder would be that even "advanced technology" has limits and if some phenomenon violates the laws of physics, then it cannot be of the natural world.

A comeback argument against that line might be that we may simply be mistaken about our understanding of the laws of physics and perhaps some phenomenon that seems to violate its laws is actually not doing so and is operating on some principle we simply don't understand yet.

The more I think about it, the more I see that idea as paradoxical. Understanding that idea fundamentally assigns anything magic to being an advanced technology. So once understanding that, is there anything at all that we could see that would convince us that there is some big fundamental aspect of the universe that we don't understand and can't with science?

Clarke's idea is powerful, but I don't think we necessarily have to accept it. Again, if some phenomenon is shown to violate the laws of physics, that would be a line of argument against it being advanced technology. Some people argue that certain aspects of some UFO phenomena fit this problem.

Here is a hypothetical: Suppose Barack Obama got in front of a live crowd and was also simultaneously broadcast on national TV to a large audience for a speech. In the middle of it, he takes out a sword and chops his own head off. Medical personnel rush to the scene and try to help him on the spot. But, you know, his head is chopped off, so like, there's not much that can be done. Blood loss at the site of the wound is extreme. His heart has stopped beating for an hour, there are no measured brain waves for the same amount of time, and his body is motionless and unresponsive at this time. He's pronounced dead after one hour. All of this is witnessed by a live crowd and captured on national TV. Suddenly, however, Barack Obama's head floats in the air and re-attaches itself to his body and he is showing live vital signs again. Doctors are astonished and verify he now has brain waves and a heart beat again and Obama is even acting his normal self: talking, laughing, moving, etc. He says he had a panic attack, suffers from depression, and regretfully chopped his own head off in a moment of mental instability. But, he says God saved him and brought him back to life.

This is an obviously ridiculous and extreme hypothetical, but the point is whether it would be reasonable to think something supernatural happened in this case? From everything we know of biology and science, a person isn't going to survive having their head chopped off for over one hour with massive blood loss, no heart beat, and no brain waves, let alone having that head self-reassemble to the body.

One might argue that some form of hoax was involved or an advanced technology. But, if we can reasonably ascertain that everyone involved was sincere and telling the truth (the doctors were honest, the crowd was genuine, the TV production was real, etc.), then at what point would we maybe start to think this was a supernatural event vs. unknown natural science or advanced technology?

 

[BillTre]

Deception might provide a higher probably explanation for some of these weird things.
Future high tech ("indistinguishable from magic") real time special effects seems a more likely explanation to me.
Perhaps some kind of programmable projection hologram.

 

[kyphysics]

Deception might provide a higher probably explanation for some of these weird things.
Future high tech ("indistinguishable from magic") real time special effects seems a more likely explanation to me.
Perhaps some kind of programmable projection hologram.

I am bolding "for some," because I think I would agree. In general, I think we ought to exhaust all probable naturalistic explanations for things, before moving on to consider the supernatural.

However, there can be times when naturalistic explanations are so convoluted and ad hoc as to be actually more improbable than a supernatural one to me. In those cases, I would actually favor a supernatural one.

The advanced technology explanations can sometimes require a lot weird stuff too. It feels some would essentially posit aliens (which we have no evidence of existing - although, certainly possible) having this advanced technology and using it in interactions with humans, as it would be difficult to imagine humans having certain levels of extreme advanced technology.

Here's a "weird" case for people's evaluation:
Dr. Richard Gallagher (M.D.)
Columbia University (Center for Psychoanalytic Training & Research) - Faculty Member
https://www.psychoanalysis.columbia.edu/people/faculty/richard-gallagher-md
New York Medical College (Clinical Psychiatry) - Professor
https://www.nymc.edu/faculty/direct...-bmsgsbms/psychiatry-and-behavioral-sciences/
Yale University School of Medicine - M.D. Psychiatry
Princeton University - A.B. Classics

featured in the Washington Post and CNN, among many other news outlets:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...tal-illness-and-sometimes-demonic-possession/ (2016)
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/04/health/exorcism-doctor/index.html (2017)

The purpose of establishing his background (Gallagher is also a Catholic, by the way) is to show that he is at least capable of rational thinking and well-educated - not just a random crazy or illiterate person off the street with no understanding of science and modern knowledge. Part of his job is to actually diagnose medical psychiatric problems, so he is very familiar with how those cases present. A "weird" and compelling case he's often discussed in various interviews (see YouTube) and in both mainstream and more niche publications is that of a patient named, "Julia" (not her real name):

Among the Many Counterfeits: A Case of Demonic Possession
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0308-gallagher

Julia was a member of a Satanic cult - a self-professed High Priestess within it - and sought help for her various problems tied to it. Gallagher says Julia knew she was possessed and partly wanted out of the Satanic cult, but also partly wanted to stay. In any case, he speaks of clearly paranormal things associated with her presence:

--secret knowledge (of things she couldn't have possibly known of team members treating her)
--bodily levitation (for about 30 minutes, as witnessed by 8 people in the room)
--flying objects (things on shelves would fly off in her presence)
--extreme temperature changes in the room during exorcism
--ability to speak in unknown (to her) foreign languages
--abnormal physical strength
--aversion to religious symbols and objects
--unnatural - practically "animalistic" - sounding voice emanating from her
--psychic abilities

HIPAA laws would prevent a random person from accessing another person's medical files, so that Julia's detailed knowledge of people's medical conditions (even of family members) within the team may be difficult to explain (without resorting to very ad hoc and convoluted means) under naturalistic means. Yes, this assumes we believe the witnesses when they say Julia revealed this hard-to-know private information. But, assuming they are telling the truth, this is something that cries out for an explanation.

Unless Julia was eavesdropping (maybe with binoculars from across the street if their window blinds happened to be open?) on Gallagher and his wife inside of their bedroom at 2-3AM the night before they first met, it may also be hard to explain how she knew their cats went crazy and attacked each other (something she mentioned upon their first meeting). And the list goes on of things Julia would have a tough time knowing simply through naturalistic means. Some of these were revealed in real time from a far distance (hundreds of miles away) and confirmed by Gallagher (via calling the person Julia was describing).

...I'll leave you all to play with this case.

 

[BillTre]

However, there can be times when naturalistic explanations are so convoluted and ad hoc as to be actually more improbable than a supernatural one to me. In those cases, I would actually favor a supernatural one.

This is a poor guide for making these kind of choices.

Throughout history, based on this kind of judgement, a lot of people have thought very complex natural events somehow require a supernatural (or at least explained by science not known to us) kind of explanation.

Biological Examples:

• structural and functional complexity of life
• origin of life

Similar conclusions could also be drawn (especially, in the past) from the complex (and largely hidden) mechanisms in today's complex electronic products, with their microscopic structural details.

These poor interpretations based on a superficial analysis, are both in theme of "indistinguishable from magic".

 

[kyphysics]

This is a poor guide for making these kind of choices.

Throughout history, based on this kind of judgement, a lot of people have thought very complex natural events somehow require a supernatural (or at least explained by science not known to us) kind of explanation.

I actually don't follow your logic, BT. But, I'd like to clarify my own here too.

You say in your earlier post that you'd be inclined to believe in some form of deception in cases of highly weird phenomena, due to the probability of it being true over a supernatural cause. Now, you never define what that probability is like, but never mind that. You basically rely on probabilities for your decision-making.

Yet, when I say that would use probability to favor a supernatural cause of something over a naturalistic one when the naturalistic one is so improbable and filled with extremely convoluted and ad hoc features as to be a non-starter, you say this form of reasoning is "poor."

To be fair, it's not entirely how I'd make my decisions on belief in the supernatural. It's not just the improbability of a naturalistic cause, but also how well the evidence positively affirms the supernatural case. This is precisely how professional academics (in philosophy, history, mathematics, etc.) handle these things.

John Earman's work (previously mentioned) on miracles, Bayesian statistics and probability sets the framework for how to mathematically evaluate miracles. This is hardly "poor" decision making. One is entirely rational to follow this approach.

Another standard approach is the use of abductive reasoning (a.k.a., inference to the best explanation) - one of the three known forms of logical reasoning (induction and deduction being the other two). One might look at the Richard Gallagher-"Julia" case, for example, that I referenced on the previous page and reasonably/logically conclude that the best fit explanation is that Julia was really demon possessed. All other explanations could be so convoluted, ad hoc, and improbable as to be dismissed. This would also be fine as a form of accepted reasoning. It's done all the time by scholars!

Whether one is using a Bayesian probability approach or abduction to evaluate miracle claims, these are standard professional academic methods of reasoning.

 

[Bullhead]

There are universal theories that depend on the existence of a dimension that transcends the natural laws of physics. This would point to the necessary existence of the supernatural in order for existence of the natural to occur.

Misunderstood science has historically been viewed as magic.

When I was young many strange things occurred in the house that I and my family lived in. The supernatural was often the only explanation at the time. As I grew older and learned more, I found that the house was very old and had most of the original unshielded and poorly grounded wiring. Beyond that, the electrical transformer was extremely close to the house and the main (overhead) power line leading to the house had become partially unraveled and formed a dangling loop below the tension cable. A copper deposit was later discovered underneath an aquifer below the property as well. I believe that all of this led to electromagnetic radiation at varying frequencies causing momentary auditory and visual hallucinations. No one in my family has experienced this type of "supernatural" occurrence since moving out of that house.

 

[AlexCaledin]

It's internal experience that really matters. My cat's paw was broken and restored again, it's natural of course. But, several days before it restored, a short but very intense prayer had happened inside me, after many days of observing the broken bone wandering loosely under the cat's skin. And the vet had said it's hopeless. It's things of that sort that really matter, as to believe or not.

 

[sysprog]

er, had the compass been invented yet?

You mean the magic needle?

 

[DaveC426913]

after many days of observing the broken bone wandering loosely under the cat's skin. And the vet had said it's hopeless.

There's a saying in the vet world:

"Put two ends of a broken cat bone in the same room and the bone will heal."

 

[valenumr]

What would it be? If you're saying that would make it science, I think that misses the point. Science is a procedure, not strictly a body of knowledge.

Hmmm, I think of science more as a body of knowledge, built upon procedure. Science is a bit Socratic, in the modesty of not claiming truth. But the method and the results prove useful, and our current body of science fairly well describe *most* known phenomena. Theorists build models, experimentalist try to break those models, or otherwise confirm their accuracy. Fundamentally, we know our models aren't perfect, but they are pretty damned good, and science is a hard endeavor these days. It's been around 50 years since the higgs mechanism was developed, and it's really a beautiful theory, and it's essentially been "confirmed". We're on a pretty good track. Cosmology also has its struggles, but we are much closer to understanding, or at least modeling, the evolution of the universe. JWST will be launching soon, and is expected to provide vast insights into many outstanding questions. Science is a never ending endeavor.

In short, if something looks like magic, I'm confident that smart folks will figure out a good explanation. Just because one can't understand something doesn't mean it is magic. And I don't think magical thinking has been a then for around 400 years, at least in the sciences.

 

[sophiecentaur]

There's a saying in the vet world:

"Put two ends of a broken cat bone in the same room and the bone will heal."

I have a friend who is a retired vet. She was saying that you have to pretty swift with animal surgery because the 'wrong' two things can stick together in no time at all during an op.
Humans are much the same. I remember having a Radical Prostatectomy and telling the surgeon that I was worried about the urethra coming apart and leaking when the catheter was removed. He laughed and said that the main risk was for the whole thing to heal up and block the tube up completely; the catheter was to deal with that as much as to deal with leaks. So plumbing is nothing like surgery!

 

[valenumr]

This is a poor guide for making these kind of choices.

Throughout history, based on this kind of judgement, a lot of people have thought very complex natural events somehow require a supernatural (or at least explained by science not known to us) kind of explanation.

Biological Examples:

• structural and functional complexity of life
• origin of life

Similar conclusions could also be drawn (especially, in the past) from the complex (and largely hidden) mechanisms in today's complex electronic products, with their microscopic structural details.

These poor interpretations based on a superficial analysis, are both in theme of "indistinguishable from magic".

Let's not forget that out of the number of possible codes that exceed the number of stars in the observable universe, almost every organism on Earth shares one (with a few minor variations).

 

[tribdog]

My wife posed a theoretical similar to this last night while watching the show Supernatural. I also was thinking about the concept that technology that is sufficiently advanced becomes indistinguishable from magic.

The more I think about it, the more I see that idea as paradoxical. Understanding that idea fundamentally assigns anything magic to being an advanced technology. So once understanding that, is there anything at all that we could see that would convince us that there is some big fundamental aspect of the universe that we don't understand and can't with science?

I keep thinking back through history and there isn't a single thing that I couldn't conceive of some theoretical technology doing. There is literally a Star Trek episode where Picard uses the technology of The Enterprise to take on the powers of the devil. Jesus turning water to wine is just a teleport trick. Zeus throwing lighting bolts sounds like a plasma weapon. Making a covenant with a group of people to bring them to heaven sounds like transplanting the consciousness of someone upon death into a simulation. Some angels being describes as flying wheels with eyes all over them sounds a lot like the way I would build a probe if I had the tech. Even in fiction: mixing franchises, I could imagine The Force actually being some sort of Q technology that a civilization with a 5 billion year head starts eventually manufactures.

So is there anything you could think of that could convince you you're seeing something extra-universal that science or future science can't grapple instead of just some very advanced technology?

Wow. You people really need a LOT of proof. I think I could believe in magic if I took off my shoes and my toenails were painted, but the weren't when I put my shoes on.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Just because one can't understand something doesn't mean it is magic.

You, and most of the rest of this thread, have got this the wrong way round. People want things to be magic. They want to believe in magic, fairies, conspiracies and all the rest, not forgetting a god because it means they can step back from personal responsibility and interpose an agency between them and real life.
The most hard boiled, dry, literal Scientists still have a corner, inside their minds which wants some fanciful notion to be true. And if you don't believe me, I'll turn you into a frog.

 

[pinball1970]

You, and most of the rest of this thread, have got this the wrong way round. People want things to be magic. They want to believe in magic, fairies, conspiracies and all the rest, not forgetting a god because it means they can step back from personal responsibility and interpose an agency between them and real life.
The most hard boiled, dry, literal Scientists still have a corner, inside their minds which wants some fanciful notion to be true. And if you don't believe me, I'll turn you into a frog.

I tried my best with this challenge but I think the consensus was no matter what, if it happens then it is natural.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wow. You people really need a LOT of proof. I think I could believe in magic if I took off my shoes and my toenails were painted, but the weren't when I put my shoes on.

That would merely be a mystery.

 

[kyphysics]

You, and most of the rest of this thread, have got this the wrong way round. People want things to be magic. They want to believe in magic, fairies, conspiracies and all the rest, not forgetting a god because it means they can step back from personal responsibility and interpose an agency between them and real life.
The most hard boiled, dry, literal Scientists still have a corner, inside their minds which wants some fanciful notion to be true. And if you don't believe me, I'll turn you into a frog.

I've had a lot of professors who absolutely didn't want God to exist. They hated the concept of God practically judging from their sentiments.

It's true that something like 90% of the world is religious and believes in the supernatural. But, many do so out of rational thinking, evidence, and argument. They don't just blithely assert their faith. Of course, you're right too that many people want to believe in fairies and magic. But, I just wouldn't take such a black and white view of things. Much of academia has a secular, anti-supernatural orientation.

Lawrence Krauss practically bullied theists and there are lots like him.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I've had a lot of professors who absolutely didn't want God to exist. They hated the concept of God practically judging from their sentiments.

You don't need to be a smart academic for that, of course. But very 'clever' people do have a problem in that they are able to argue very well and they can eliminate their doubts in the same way. But they are all human and, pro or anti Theist, they are in a better than average position to hold their opinions, either way, by internal argument. Atheism is a just another very powerful 'ism'.

As with UFOs and conspiracies, there are few arguments supporting the existence of Magic (and the rest) based on actual evidence. Personally, I see all that stuff as human artefacts, invented to satisfy our needs. I do not feel strongly about it all but I do recognise how attractive Magic etc. can be.

Suspending disbelief is a major activity in all our lives.

 

[pinball1970]

I've had a lot of professors who absolutely didn't want God to exist. They hated the concept of God practically judging from their sentiments.

It's true that something like 90% of the world is religious and believes in the supernatural. But, many do so out of rational thinking, evidence, and argument. They don't just blithely assert their faith. Of course, you're right too that many people want to believe in fairies and magic. But, I just wouldn't take such a black and white view of things. Much of academia has a secular, anti-supernatural orientation.

Lawrence Krauss practically bullied theists and there are lots like him.

These are the guys we would have to convince magic/supernatural is real.

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

I do think there are too many surprises here though? In terms of numbers?

How many scientists do you think go to fortune tellers, palm readers or read the daily horoscopes?

Biologists have been hounded by creationists since Darwin probably so more so than Krauss and other physicists. (if you read the ink)

Krauss has claimed that many of the scientists he talks to, do not think about such things enough to know whether they are atheist or not!

Trying to convince scientists that there is something in this (magic/supernatural) would be asking them to forget the about the methods used in science.

In short, Empiricism, all that stuff you measure test and verify that is great BUT there is all this other stuff that is there but there is no way of demonstrating it, testing or verifying it.

If you notice in the link the poll becomes a lot less polarized when the (NOMA) question is put them.

So religious scientists seem happier with “leave your bible in your locker when you come into the lab and leave your lab coat in the lab when you come to church.”

I used that method till I was 24 but I had already dismissed miracles and magic by then.

Being totally honest about it though, something very strange happening during that time may have convinced me the almighty was sending me a sign (probably because I was losing my faith)

Something inexplicable now would be viewed as I do not understand but there has to be a NATURAL” explanation, OR I am hallucinating right now.

 

[Rive]

I tried my best with this challenge but I think the consensus was no matter what, if it happens then it is natural.

Mind you, this 'natural' is not the same 'natural' as 'known laws and workings of the universe, together with our expectations'.

 

[sophiecentaur]

These are the guys we would have to convince magic/supernatural is real.

Perhaps you should replace the 'we' with a non-specific 'one', cos you can't include me in the we. For me, it doesn't have to be real - just part of the evolution of human nature.

A quote from that paper:
"There are still many questions worth pursuing, not least the question of why biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists."
Is it really surprising? It's got to be a left brain / right brain thing. Very little that Physical Scientists do involves any conflict between belief and non-belief in god etc. so they can tread both paths quite happily. Many Biologists are right up against situations where there is a perceived conflict (and the unanswerable why question). Not too surprisingly, they have thought about the problem more and, so, would have strong opinions.

 

[hutchphd]

I've had a lot of professors who absolutely didn't want God to exist. They hated the concept of God practically judging from their sentiments.

Steven Weinberg once famously said, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion"
Seems reason enough hate the concept...

.

 

[pinball1970]

Perhaps you should replace the 'we' with a non-specific 'one', cos you can't include me in the we. For me, it doesn't have to be real - just part of the evolution of human nature.

A quote from that paper:
"There are still many questions worth pursuing, not least the question of why biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists."
Is it really surprising? It's got to be a left brain / right brain thing. Very little that Physical Scientists do involves any conflict between belief and non-belief in god etc. so they can tread both paths quite happily. Many Biologists are right up against situations where there is a perceived conflict (and the unanswerable why question). Not too surprisingly, they have thought about the problem more and, so, would have strong opinions.

You guys not been challenged on prime mover? Something from nothing? Fine tuning? Young earth? Flat earth?

Plenty of potential for magic in that lot.