Do you believe in the supernatural..?

[61653 HTAFC]

mods note - split from this thread

Whilst I don't want to pour cold water on people's beliefs (and indeed I can't, as one cannot prove a negative), I would like to remind people of Occam's Razor.

Some of the stories on this thread are interesting and fascinating, but I remain a hard sceptic when it comes to the supernatural. Whilst it is true that absence of evidence is not in itself evidence of absence, there are very few things in life that actually occur but leave no trace at all. Occam's razor would suggest that in the absence of any evidence it would be unwise to assume the presence of anything or anyone that left no trace.
The human brain is amazingly complex and not particularly well understood, but it is also famously prone to making errors. There are countless examples of eyewitnesses to the same events reporting radically different memories of those events, and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Our senses play tricks on us all the time, psychologists have suggested that the numerous "big cat" sightings in the UK could well be a primitive instinct to be aware of potential predators- what's actually seen is a common house cat, but the brain sees cat shape and thinks threat before the conscious part of the brain has even fully processed the information. By which time the animal has already gone behind another tree, so that initial "fear" response gets reinforced in the memory. The person will then insist that they saw a panther or leopard, and nobody will convince them otherwise.
Another cat related anecdote, when I was a kid we had a black cat named Sooty (very creative parents!) who died when I was 11. My high school's uniform included a black jumper, and both myself and my brother would, in summer, get home from school and throw our jumpers into the armchairs in the lounge. For years, we'd see these jumpers in the chairs later that day and do a double-take thinking it was Sooty. The human brain is a peculiar beast!

For those that have stories about seeing lost relatives, grief is a traumatic experience and different people's brains will process this trauma in different ways. I can't possibly disprove that you saw a lost loved one, and I've no incentive to do so... but I think it's more likely that it was just your brain's way of dealing with the loss. If it helps you, who am I to take that away? I can't absolutely rule out that something supernatural went on. Though even by saying it's more likely to be a psychological process I'm in no way trying to diminish the feelings of loss that cause it. If anything the fact that the "supernatural experience" had such a profound impact, shows how much that person meant to you.

What I absolutely will discredit and debunk are those charlatans who try to prey on this loss by claiming they can communicate with the departed, especially if they charge a fee or solicit "donations"- which in my experience they almost always do. I've encountered these charlatans trying to exploit a close family member after a loss, so I have very little patience for such fraudulent shenanigans.

 

[Busaholic]

Whilst I don't want to pour cold water on people's beliefs (and indeed I can't, as one cannot prove a negative), I would like to remind people of Occam's Razor.

Some of the stories on this thread are interesting and fascinating, but I remain a hard sceptic when it comes to the supernatural. Whilst it is true that absence of evidence is not in itself evidence of absence, there are very few things in life that actually occur but leave no trace at all. Occam's razor would suggest that in the absence of any evidence it would be unwise to assume the presence of anything or anyone that left no trace.
The human brain is amazingly complex and not particularly well understood, but it is also famously prone to making errors. There are countless examples of eyewitnesses to the same events reporting radically different memories of those events, and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Our senses play tricks on us all the time, psychologists have suggested that the numerous "big cat" sightings in the UK could well be a primitive instinct to be aware of potential predators- what's actually seen is a common house cat, but the brain sees cat shape and thinks threat before the conscious part of the brain has even fully processed the information. By which time the animal has already gone behind another tree, so that initial "fear" response gets reinforced in the memory. The person will then insist that they saw a panther or leopard, and nobody will convince them otherwise.
Another cat related anecdote, when I was a kid we had a black cat named Sooty (very creative parents!) who died when I was 11. My high school's uniform included a black jumper, and both myself and my brother would, in summer, get home from school and throw our jumpers into the armchairs in the lounge. For years, we'd see these jumpers in the chairs later that day and do a double-take thinking it was Sooty. The human brain is a peculiar beast!

For those that have stories about seeing lost relatives, grief is a traumatic experience and different people's brains will process this trauma in different ways. I can't possibly disprove that you saw a lost loved one, and I've no incentive to do so... but I think it's more likely that it was just your brain's way of dealing with the loss. If it helps you, who am I to take that away? I can't absolutely rule out that something supernatural went on. Though even by saying it's more likely to be a psychological process I'm in no way trying to diminish the feelings of loss that cause it. If anything the fact that the "supernatural experience" had such a profound impact, shows how much that person meant to you.

What I absolutely will discredit and debunk are those charlatans who try to prey on this loss by claiming they can communicate with the departed, especially if they charge a fee or solicit "donations"- which in my experience they almost always do. I've encountered these charlatans trying to exploit a close family member after a loss, so I have very little patience for such fraudulent shenanigans.

I regard myself as open minded and don't have any beliefs as such. That equates to me being agnostic in religious terms, because although I see precious little to justify the belief in the existence of a 'God' who am I to be so arrogant as to pretend I know? It makes no difference as to how I live my life. I don't even 'believe' in the supernatural as such: based on my own experiences I wouldn't even class them as supernatural, just things which can't be explained very easily by conventional thinking. Scientists are not always freethinkers by any means, but can be as dogmatic as religious types or, for that matter, Richard Dawkins. A little more humility and acknowledgement we are as people exceedingly ignorant of our world would not come amiss.

I couldn't agree more about mediums, charlatans to a man (or, more often, woman) but I also despise the American TV evangelists who seem to increasingly have a grip on the credulous in so many American states, not least in advancing the Trumpian agenda.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I regard myself as open minded and don't have any beliefs as such. That equates to me being agnostic in religious terms, because although I see precious little to justify the belief in the existence of a 'God' who am I to be so arrogant as to pretend I know? It makes no difference as to how I live my life. I don't even 'believe' in the supernatural as such: based on my own experiences I wouldn't even class them as supernatural, just things which can't be explained very easily by conventional thinking. Scientists are not always freethinkers by any means, but can be as dogmatic as religious types or, for that matter, Richard Dawkins. A little more humility and acknowledgement we are as people exceedingly ignorant of our world would not come amiss.

I couldn't agree more about mediums, charlatans to a man (or, more often, woman) but I also despise the American TV evangelists who seem to increasingly have a grip on the credulous in so many American states, not least in advancing the Trumpian agenda.

When it comes to discussion of religious matters, the word "agnostic" is possibly the most often misused. Gnosticism refers to knowledge, "agnostic" meaning without knowledge. It's almost always used, by both religious and non-religious people, as if it means something akin to "sitting on the fence" on the question of God. You can be an agnostic theist (someone who believes in God but acknowledges that their belief is based on faith rather than knowledge) or an agnostic atheist (someone who doesn't claim they know there is no God, but chooses not to follow religious doctrine). Then there are gnostic theists (those who are convinced that God exists) and gnostic atheists (those who are convinced that no gods exist). I'm definitely an atheist, I do not follow any religious doctrine or believe that a god exists, but my gnostic position depends on the god proposition in question. I find the arguments put forward by the mainstream religions I'm familiar with (basically the three* Abrahamic ones) unconvincing, to the point that whilst I can't entirely rule out the existence of the deities they propose, I'm fairly certain that their doctrines as they exist in the present day are categorically untrue, due to the translation errors and logical/textual contradictions within.

*= for avoidance of doubt, those being Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Leaving aside the various different sects of each- the existence of which is something I consider to be further evidence for their untruth.

Going back to the broader supernatural propositions, I feel more comfortable being a hard sceptic on those. We have the ability to transmit huge swaths of data around the world wirelessly in seconds, to detect rays and particles far smaller than we can see, and to identify criminals from the DNA extracted from a few cells. The fact that not a single piece of evidence (aside from personal testimony) has ever been gathered of ghosts existing despite many attempts, does rather work against the proposition. Whilst it is possible (though IMO implausible) that the technology that would detect such things simply hasn't been invented or discovered yet, I'm not going to be saving any space in my fridge for humble pie for now!
If those things do exist, but cannot be reliably detected by anyone with the time and inclination to do so, that's to me functionally the same as it not existing at all.

 

[Busaholic]

When it comes to discussion of religious matters, the word "agnostic" is possibly the most often misused. Gnosticism refers to knowledge, "agnostic" meaning without knowledge. It's almost always used, by both religious and non-religious people, as if it means something akin to "sitting on the fence" on the question of God. You can be an agnostic theist (someone who believes in God but acknowledges that their belief is based on faith rather than knowledge) or an agnostic atheist (someone who doesn't claim they know there is no God, but chooses not to follow religious doctrine). Then there are gnostic theists (those who are convinced that God exists) and gnostic atheists (those who are convinced that no gods exist). I'm definitely an atheist, I do not follow any religious doctrine or believe that a god exists, but my gnostic position depends on the god proposition in question. I find the arguments put forward by the mainstream religions I'm familiar with (basically the three* Abrahamic ones) unconvincing, to the point that whilst I can't entirely rule out the existence of the deities they propose, I'm fairly certain that their doctrines as they exist in the present day are categorically untrue, due to the translation errors and logical/textual contradictions within.

*= for avoidance of doubt, those being Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Leaving aside the various different sects of each- the existence of which is something I consider to be further evidence for their untruth.

Going back to the broader supernatural propositions, I feel more comfortable being a hard sceptic on those. We have the ability to transmit huge swaths of data around the world wirelessly in seconds, to detect rays and particles far smaller than we can see, and to identify criminals from the DNA extracted from a few cells. The fact that not a single piece of evidence (aside from personal testimony) has ever been gathered of ghosts existing despite many attempts, does rather work against the proposition. Whilst it is possible (though IMO implausible) that the technology that would detect such things simply hasn't been invented or discovered yet, I'm not going to be saving any space in my fridge for humble pie for now!
If those things do exist, but cannot be reliably detected by anyone with the time and inclination to do so, that's to me functionally the same as it not existing at all.

I guess in your terms I'd be classed as an agnostic atheist, but I wouldn't describe myself as such. In any case, it's not that relevant to the topic, other than that I can see somebody's religious upbringing/predelictions/whatever might incline them to reject some fairly strong evidence. Data and DNA has nothing to do with it, the latter being an unknown quantity until fairly recently and the former a 'catch all' for those who believe whatever is the latest scientific me-too theory which will itself probably be debunked within the next few years. I have seen videotapes from static cameras of some very bizarre occurrences which could only be explained away by alleging doctoring of the said tape. Some might have been, though at the time it would have been very cumbersome and time-consuming, Personally, I've no interest in your eating of humble pie but changing one's mind is the sign of a good working brain in my opinion.

 

[DarloRich]

Shall i be that guy? Go on then!

None of this is real. There are no ghosts or spooks. It is all in your mind. It is just coincidence, suggestibility, stress, trauma, tiredness, emotion or such like. It is your minds way of dealing with things that it cant quite compute.

Sorry to be a wet blanket.

Ps i do like a good ghost story but that is all they are, stories.

 

[Robin Edwards]

Shall i be that guy? Go on then!

None of this is real. There are no ghosts or spooks. It is all in your mind. It is just coincidence, suggestibility, stress, trauma, tiredness, emotion or such like. It is your minds way of dealing with things that it cant quite compute.

Sorry to be a wet blanket.

Ps i do like a good ghost story but that is all they are, stories.

I'm not wanting to disagree but from personal experience I have moved to having a more open mind.

How would you explain two people having the same experience at the same time - would it be a total coincidence that both are having exactly the same encounter independently yet also at the same time?

 

[DarloRich]

I'm not wanting to disagree but from personal experience I have moved to having a more open mind.

How would you explain two people having the same experience at the same time - would it be a total coincidence that both are having exactly the same encounter independently yet also at the same time?

It is just a coincidence and/or suggestibility. Nothing more.

I would also challenge identical. I bet it wasnt. If you took both parties, isolated them and asked the same questions I bet there would be differences.

Sorry to be boring.

 

[nw1]

Whilst I don't want to pour cold water on people's beliefs (and indeed I can't, as one cannot prove a negative), I would like to remind people of Occam's Razor.

Some of the stories on this thread are interesting and fascinating, but I remain a hard sceptic when it comes to the supernatural. Whilst it is true that absence of evidence is not in itself evidence of absence, there are very few things in life that actually occur but leave no trace at all. Occam's razor would suggest that in the absence of any evidence it would be unwise to assume the presence of anything or anyone that left no trace.
The human brain is amazingly complex and not particularly well understood, but it is also famously prone to making errors. There are countless examples of eyewitnesses to the same events reporting radically different memories of those events, and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Our senses play tricks on us all the time, psychologists have suggested that the numerous "big cat" sightings in the UK could well be a primitive instinct to be aware of potential predators- what's actually seen is a common house cat, but the brain sees cat shape and thinks threat before the conscious part of the brain has even fully processed the information. By which time the animal has already gone behind another tree, so that initial "fear" response gets reinforced in the memory. The person will then insist that they saw a panther or leopard, and nobody will convince them otherwise.

I can comment on a phenomenon I've noticed this summer. For part of this summer I have been out of the UK in a locale where there are plenty of stray cats and dogs. In a particular part of the town here is a large white-grey stray dog, which is mostly calm but sometimes follows you and gets a little close.

The streets in the area are a little dimly lit. On a couple of occasions I have been convinced I've seen a rather large dog, maybe 100 metres ahead of me, but then when I look properly, it turns out to be an average sized cat. So my brain is probably "looking for" the stray dog, sees a cat and - perhaps due to the dim lighting - initially processes it as a dog.

 

[Robin Edwards]

It is just a coincidence and/or suggestibility. Nothing more.

I would also challenge identical. I bet it wasnt. If you took both parties, isolated them and asked the same questions I bet there would be differences.

Sorry to be boring.

I don't tell our story and nor does my wife - and I won't elaborate here as there is no point and nothing to be gained. I don't claim the paranormal but as an ordinarily logical person, I will never be able to explain the inexplicable. Needless to say that "something" that will remain unknown and illogical was in our rented holiday cottage bedroom that night in 1993 and we were both as awake then as I am typing this now and we were both scared beyond anything we could explain. My memory is as vivid now as it was then.

But as you say, we were both wrong hence why these experiences are really not worth sharing.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The human brain is brilliant at certain things, but quite imperfect at others. It's quite poor at being corrected once it's decided what it saw. Memory in particular is not as reliable as we like to think it is.

 

[Parjon]

It is just a coincidence and/or suggestibility. Nothing more.

I would also challenge identical. I bet it wasnt. If you took both parties, isolated them and asked the same questions I bet there would be differences.

Sorry to be boring.

Not boring. Just rude!

 

[DarloRich]

But as you say, we were both wrong hence why these experiences are really not worth sharing.

I have no doubt you believe you saw what you saw and i dont say that you are wrong to believe that. That is unfair.

I simply say that i dont believe in ghosts and gouls and expect there is a logical explanation for everything.

The problem is that logical explanations such as : tiredness, emotianal distress, mental illness, hallucinations, desire TO believe, suggestibility etc etc are very boring.

(BTW: I dont assign any of those to you but simply point out that those items are often, to my mind, the cause of such sightings)

I am happy to amicably disagree. I accept you believe what you saw and hope you expcept my lack of belief.

The human brain is brilliant at certain things, but quite imperfect at others. It's quite poor at being corrected once it's decided what it saw. Memory in particular is not as reliable as we like to think it is.

Eye witness evidence is often unreliable. It is easy to discredit on the stand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2023 ==

Not boring. Just rude!

I didnt realise that disagreeing is rude. I must try harder not to be the odd one out.

Btw why are ghosts always bad? Why are none good? Why do none deliver the loto numbers or tell you where you lost those car keys are hiding?

 

[Parjon]

I didnt realise that disagreeing is rude. I must try harder not to be the odd one out

You didn't disagree. *You* told the guy what *he* experienced.

You believe what you want to, but that's just arrogance.

 

[DarloRich]

You didn't disagree. You told the guy that what he experienced is not what he experienced.

You believe what you want to, but that's just arrogance.

No I did not say that.

I was asked to explain something and did so. You might not like or agree with that answer but it isnt rude.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Eye witness evidence is often unreliable. It is easy to discredit on the stand.

Indeed it is, and I alluded to that in an earlier post. Problem is, people can get very defensive when their account is questioned. They think their integrity is being called into doubt, rather than a recognition that the human memory is fallible.
Like yourself, I don't doubt that those on this thread reporting "spooky" encounters genuinely do believe that they saw something that known science can't explain. I just think it's far more likely that they are mistaken in drawing that conclusion.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I have a few experiences which have freaked me out but I don't for a moment believe any of them were supernatural, many of them occurred after long solitary times in darkness and they felt very real but I know it was just my mind playing tricks on me.

 

[nw1]

I don't believe in the supernatural, as such, but on the other hand I cannot 100% say it does not exist. Just that it's unlikely to exist on the balance of probability.

 

[Parjon]

I don't believe in the supernatural, as such, but on the other hand I cannot 100% say it does not exist. Just that it's unlikely to exist on the balance of probability.

To calculate probability, you need inputs.

There is much more in the universe that we don't know, than do know, so we are limited in terms of calculating that probability.

As "supernatural" is by definition unknown (hence the super), calculating the probability of its existence is almost like calculating infinity.

Except that we can be certain our known world is only a minute fraction of what there is to be known, based on even just the observable universe.

How likely is it that the remainder of even just the observable universe is exactly like what we have seen already?

With that as an input, I think the probability would be that the supernatural very likely does exist.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

To calculate probability, you need inputs.

There is much more in the universe that we don't know, than do know, so we are limited in terms of calculating that probability.

As "supernatural" is by definition unknown (hence the super), calculating the probability of its existence is almost like calculating infinity.

Except that we can be certain our known world is only a minute fraction of what there is to be known, based on even just the observable universe.

How likely is it that the remainder of even just the observable universe is exactly like what we have seen already?

With that as an input, I think the probability would be that the supernatural very likely does exist.

That's using a very broad definition of "supernatural". I'd argue that by definition the supernatural cannot exist, because if we discover a way to measure it scientifically it will no longer be considered supernatural. It'll just be natural.
The laws of physics as we experience them on Earth may well be different from how they are on other Exoplanets. A smaller planetary body will have a lower gravitational pull (if all other constants are controlled for) but that will still be natural, not supernatural.

 

[Parjon]

That's using a very broad definition of "supernatural". I'd argue that by definition the supernatural cannot exist, because if we discover a way to measure it scientifically it will no longer be considered supernatural. It'll just be natural.
The laws of physics as we experience them on Earth may well be different from how they are on other Exoplanets. A smaller planetary body will have a lower gravitational pull (if all other constants are controlled for) but that will still be natural, not supernatural.

Everything is natural, whether we know of it or not. So yes I agree "supernatural" is just a term we use for things that defy our current understanding.

 

[Trainguy34]

tell you where you lost those car keys are hiding?

Now that would be helpful!

 

[GS250]

Must admit one thing that temporarily terrified me as a teenager was the thought of spontaneous human combustion. Mainly the fact that it could apparently be a supernatural phenomenon.

Does seem to have been more or less ruled out as impossible. Virtually every case saw the victim near a source of heat, usually elderly and semi incapacitated. Didn't they set fire to a pig wrapped in a blanket to demonstrate the 'wick effect'?

 

[Purple Train]

Everything is natural, whether we know of it or not. So yes I agree "supernatural" is just a term we use for things that defy our current understanding.

Which is, of course, far from comprehensive.

 

[DelW]

Everything is natural, whether we know of it or not. So yes I agree "supernatural" is just a term we use for things that defy our current understanding.

I think it's possible, indeed probable, that there are physical systems or forces in the universe, which we don't understand or of which we're completely unaware, but which could have physical manifestations that we can experience.

As an analogy, take electricity a couple of hundred years ago. No one knew how to create or control it, or even what it was, but they would have experienced its effects, e.g. static electricity on woollen clothing, or lightning storms. With no knowledge of what caused the latter, it was often believed to be the wrath of God (or gods). Now that we understand electricity and meteorology better, that "supernatural" explanation is no longer needed or believed.

But it would be arrogant to assume that at this point in time we have discovered and understood everything there is to know about the universe and its laws. A case in point is what is referred to as "dark matter". That's just a shorthand for the fact that the mass of matter that we can see and measure isn't enough to match the equations to make the universe work as it does. So either the equations are wrong, or, as is thought, there is a lot of "other stuff" that is out there, which we haven't found and don't even know what form it might take. Some of the unknowns out there may include forces or systems whose effects we might see but not comprehend.

Remember that in a few centuries' time, if the human race survives, people may look back at us as we look back at medieval people and think how ignorant they (we) were then (now). And by then, things that we think apparently supernatural or inexplicable may be entirely understood and rational.

 

[yorksrob]

Must admit one thing that temporarily terrified me as a teenager was the thought of spontaneous human combustion. Mainly the fact that it could apparently be a supernatural phenomenon.

Does seem to have been more or less ruled out as impossible. Virtually every case saw the victim near a source of heat, usually elderly and semi incapacitated. Didn't they set fire to a pig wrapped in a blanket to demonstrate the 'wick effect'?

Yes, I saw that documentary as well. Turned out not to be very spontaneous at all (but very much still combustion).

 

[birchesgreen]

One of my great-great-uncles died of a heart attack and fell onto an open fire, was undiscovered for at least a day. That must have been pretty grim to discover.

 

[nw1]

On a related point, perhaps, can the fact that we don't see people come back from the future be used to deduce that backwards time travel cannot exist?

Or is the current era simply not interesting enough for people from the future to want to visit?

 

[PudseyBearHST]

Yes, I do. God, angels, genies.

 

[Busaholic]

I don't tell our story and nor does my wife - and I won't elaborate here as there is no point and nothing to be gained. I don't claim the paranormal but as an ordinarily logical person, I will never be able to explain the inexplicable. Needless to say that "something" that will remain unknown and illogical was in our rented holiday cottage bedroom that night in 1993 and we were both as awake then as I am typing this now and we were both scared beyond anything we could explain. My memory is as vivid now as it was then.

But as you say, we were both wrong hence why these experiences are really not worth sharing.

That's very interesting. I too had my first 'supernatural' experience in 1993, and it was shared by my wife, although we were in different parts of the flat at the time. I'll only say that it was not frightening to either of us, neither of us saw anything 'spooky' and ensuing events seem to be related to that experience, though decades later. I have never seen a ghost or apparition and doubt I ever shall.

 

[bahnause]

One of the best arguments against supernatural experiences are these experiences themselves. They are particularly common in religion, whether in the form of inspirations, dreams, observations or other phenomena. And in 95% of the cases these supernatural experiences exclude themselves. If experience A is real, experience B cannot be real in any case. The overlaps come from the fact that religions copy from each other and add new nonsense. This leads to the conclusion that at most a tiny part of these supernatural experiences could be real at all, but it is much more likely that none of them is real at all.